Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T11:25:00.704Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Study of “Yao Lue” 要略, “A Sumary of the Essentials”: The Huainanzi 淮南子 from the Point of View of the Postface*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 March 2015

Judson B. Murray
Judson B. Murray*
Affiliation:
283 Marlborough Street, East Greenwich RI 02818, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Huainanzi is a Former Han 前漢 dynasty (202 B.C.E.–9 C.E.) compendium of knowledge written at the court of Huainan and presented to Emperor Wu of the Han 漢武帝 in 139 by Liu An 劉安 (?179–122), the king of Huainan. Liu An was the grandson of the Han “progenitor” Gaozu 高祖 (Liu Bang 劉邦 r. 202–195), and he was the uncle of the reigning emperor Wu (r. 140–87). According to the author(s) of the text’s postface, “Yao lue” 要略 or “A Summary of the Essentials,” the work seeks to provide a comprehensive account or chronicle of the dao 道 (conventionally translated as the “Way”), understood broadly to encompass the cosmos (tiandi 天地 or “Heaven and Earth”), human beings (ren 人) and their affairs (shi 事), and the relationship between them. The account of the dao presented in its chapters is not, however, purely descriptive. The Huainanzi is foremost a political treatise containing instructions worthy of a sage-king (shengwang 聖王) to be employed by the ruler as the proper model or standard by which to govern the empire.

Type
Articles
Information
Early China , Volume 29 , 2004 , pp. 45 - 109
Copyright
Copyright © Society for the Study of Early China 2004 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

I wish to thank the anonymous reviewers, the journal editor, and Michael Puett, Henry Rosemont, Roger Ames, and Harold Roth for their insightful criticisms of this paper. I would also like to thank Sarah Queen, because translating this chapter with her for the Huainanzi translation team project directed by Harold Roth and John Major has greatly enhanced my understanding of the postface. All their thoughtful comments have, in one way or another, found their way into this final version and have helped refine my analysis of the chapter.

References

1. All dates in this article are B.C.E. unless otherwise stated.

2. For a discussion of key events in Liu An’s biography and an overall picture of both the historical circumstances and the political context that led to his suicide and the ultimate dissolution of the kingdom of Huainan, see Vankeerberghen, Griet, The Huainanzi and Liu An’s Claim to Moral Authority (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2001), 1–78 Google Scholar. For a survey and examination of the available evidence concerning Liu An's life, see Osamu, Kanaya 金谷治, Rōsō teki sekai, Enanji no shisō 老莊的世界, 淮 南子の思想 (Kyoto: Heirakuji, 1969), 24–56 Google Scholar. For an analysis of the “personality” of Liu An gleaned from his biographies in Shi ji 史記 and Han shu 漢書, the “Bing lue” 兵略 chapter (ch. 15) of the Huainanzi, and his “Taoist apotheosis” recorded in Ge Hong’s 葛洪 (283–343 c.e.) Shenxian zhuan 神仙傳, see Wallacker, Benjamin, “Liu An, Second King of Huai-nan (180?–122),” Journal of the American Oriental Society 92 (1972), 36–49 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For Liu An’s biographies in the standard histories, see Qian, Sima 司馬遷, Shi ji (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1959)Google Scholar, 118.3082–94, and Gu, Ban 班固, Han shu (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1962), 44.2145–53Google Scholar.

3. Chan, Wing-tsit, A Sourcebook in Chinese Philosophy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1963), 305 Google Scholar.

4. For example, Michael Puett challenges the broad historical narrative assumed by Chan (among other scholars). Chan sees the composition of the Huainanzi as somehow contemporaneous with the adoption of Confucianism as the state orthodoxy of the Han. Puett explains that although they did so in very different ways, both the Huainanzi and Dong Zhongshu 董仲舒 (?179–?104) criticized the authoritarian, centralizing policies implemented by Han Wudi. Furthermore, Puett argues that to label the former “Huang-Lao” and the latter “imperial Confucianism” and then conjecture that the latter supplanted the former at the Han imperial court is misleading. In short, at the time the text was submitted to Han Wudi in 139 the ideological foundations of the young emperor’s reign were still very much in question. For the details of Puett’s argument and his own explanation of Han Wudi’s “legitimating acts,” see The Ambivalence of Creation: Debates Concerning Innovation and Artifice in Early China (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2001), 168–76Google Scholar.

Second, whereas Chan views the Huainanzi ’s originality to be only “negligible,” scholars such as Roger T. Ames and Michael Puett have shown, albeit in different ways and by explicating different chapters of the text, the degree to which the authors of the Huainanzi were doing much more than simple “reiteration and elaboration” of not just Laozi and Zhuangzi but various pre-Qin and pre-Han sources. See, for example, Ames, Roger T., The Art of Rulership: A Study of Ancient Chinese Political Thought (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1994), 1–164 Google Scholar; Osamu, Kanaya, Shin Kan shisō shi kenkyū 秦漢思想史研究, 2nd ed. rev. (Kyoto: Heirakuji, 1981), ch. 5Google Scholar; Puett, Michael, To Become a God: Cosmology, Sacrifice, and Self-Divination in Early China (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2002), 259–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Puett, , “Violent Misreadings: The Hermeneutics of Cosmology in the Huainanzi ,” Bulletin of the Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities 72 (2000), 29–47 Google Scholar.

Finally, although Chan refers to “Huai-nan Tzu” (that is, Liu An) as “the most prominent Taoist” of his time, scholars have begun to question whether it is accurate to characterize or label the text composed at his court as “Daoist.” See, for example, Queen, Sarah A., “Inventories of the Past: Rethinking the ‘School’ Affiliation of the Huainanzi ,” Asia Major 14.1 (2001), 51–72 Google Scholar. For a critique of attempts to categorize the text as a “Huang-Lao” Daoist text, see, for example, Loewe, Michael, “Huang-Lao Thought and the Huainanzi ,” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, Series 3, 4.3, (November 1994), 377–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Puett, Michael, The Ambivalence of Creation, 260–61n72Google Scholar; and Puett, , To Become a God, 269 Google Scholar. Furthermore, Lau, D. C. and Ames, Roger T., Yuan Dao: Tracing Dao to its Source (New York: Ballantine Books, 1998), 12 Google Scholar, argue that the category “Huang-Lao” does little to shed light on the contents of the Huainanzi because it has become a “receptacle” for any early Han text containing a Daoist “tincture,” and given the syncretism typical of this period few works would be excluded by it. Lastly, Lewis, Mark Edward, Writing and Authority in Early China (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1999), 488n6 Google Scholar, remarks that the term “Huang-Lao” is doomed to function merely as a convenient shorthand for modern scholars formulating “their own analyses” of intellectual currents in early Han thought. With the exception of my account of the opinion presented in the postface concerning the text’s affiliation, this paper does not address in detail the problem of the intellectual affiliation of the Huainanzi. For a discussion of the limitations imposed on the study of the early history of Daoism by appealing to traditional taxonomies, see Csikszentmihàlyi, Mark, “Traditional Taxonomies and Revealed Texts in the Han,” in Daoist Identity: History, Lineage, and Ritual, ed. Kohn, Livia and Roth, Harold, (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2002), 81–101 Google Scholar.

5. Osamu, Kanaya, Rōsō teki sekai, Enanji no shisō, 121–259 Google Scholar.

6. For instance, Roth, Harold D., The Textual History of the Huainanzi (Ann Arbor: The Association of Asian Studies, 1992), 13 Google Scholar, describes the text as the “principal representative of Huang-Lao thought during the Han.” See also his preface to Ames, Roger, The Art of Rulership, ix–xiii Google Scholar. Roth regards the work of Hsiao Kung-chuan (Xiao Gongquan 蕭公權), A History of Chinese Political Thought, trans. by Mote, F. W., (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1979), 570–82Google Scholar, as conclusive on this point. For Xiao’s view of Han Dynasty Huang-Lao, see 552–56 of the same volume. Similar assessments of the text appear in Major, John S., Heaven and Earth in Early Han Thought: Chapters Three, Four, and Five of the Huainanzi (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1993), 8–14 Google Scholar; and Blanc, Charles Le, Huai-Nan Tzu: Philosophical Synthesis in Early Han Thought: The Idea of Resonance with a Translation and Analysis of Chapter Six (Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 1985), 6–8, 29–30 Google Scholar. For criticisms of this position, see n.4 above.

7. Some scholars regard the latter as the previously lost Huangdi sijing 黃帝四經. See, for example, Lan, Tang 唐蘭, “Huangdi sijing chutan” 黃帝四經初探, Wenwu 文物 10 (1974), 48–52 Google Scholar; and “Mawangdui chutu Laozi yiben juanqian guyishu de yanjiu” 馬王堆 出土老子乙本卷前古佚書的研究, Kaogu xuebao 考古學報 1 (1975), 7–38 Google Scholar. See also Chang, Leo S. and Feng, Yu, The Four Political Treatises of the Yellow Emperor (Hawaii: University of Hawaii Press, Monographs of the Society for Asian and Comparative Philosophy, no. 15, 1998), 1–4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Wei-ming, Tu, “The ‘Thought of Huang-Lao’: A Reflection on the Lao Tzu and Huang Ti Texts in the Silk Manuscripts of Ma-wang-dui,” Journal of Asian Studies 39.1 (1979), 95–110 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, also seems to agree with Tang’s findings. Other scholars disagree with this ascription and refer to them simply as the Huang-Lao boshu. See, for example, Yates, Robin D.S., Five Lost Classics: Tao, Huang-Lao, and Yin-Yang in Han China (New York: Ballantine Books, 1997), 3–43, 193–202 Google Scholar; and Peerenboom, R. P., Law and Morality in Ancient China: The Silk Manuscripts of Huang-Lao (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1993)Google Scholar.

8. Yu-lan, Fung (Feng Youlan 馮友蘭, 1895–1990), Zhongguo zhexue shi xinbian 中國哲 學史新編 (Beijing: Renmin, 1964), 2.143Google Scholar, also asserts that the contents of the Huainanzi correspond to and are representative of the Daode lineage enumerated by Sima Tan in his “Essential Tenets of the Six Lineages.”

9. John Knoblock and Jeffrey Riegel seek to correct a general misconception of this category based on a mistranslation of za to mean “miscellaneous,” “eclectic,” or “syncretic.” “The works of the ‘Mixed School,’” they argue, The Annals of Lü Buwei (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2000), 46 Google Scholar, “were not ‘miscellaneous,’ ‘eclectic,’ or ‘syncretic’; they were not ill-considered mish-mashes of extracts culled from other works and displaying little originality of thought. Rather, they belonged to a class of philosophical speculation that dealt especially with the relation of the human realm to the cosmos, governance to cosmology, the ruler to Heaven and Earth. We can see this directly in the two most important works of the ‘Mixed School,’ the Lüshi chunqiu and the Huainanzi.” They base this characterization on Liu Xiang’s summary of the “Mixed School” contained in Han shu 30. They note that according to him this school developed out of the “Office of Councilors” (yi guan 議官) whose main purpose was to “understand what was needed for the proper form of the state apparatus and to see that the government of a true king connected everything properly” (Han shu 30.1742) (translated by Knoblock, and Riegel, , Annals of Lü Buwei, 45)Google Scholar.

10. Queen, “Inventories of the Past,” 52n5, mentions two Chinese scholars in particular: Yiping, Chen 陳一平, Huainanzi jiaozhu yi 淮南子校注譯 (Guangdong: Renmin, 1994)Google Scholar, and Wailu, Hou 侯外盧, Zhongguo sixiang tongshi 中國思想通史 (Beijing: Renmin, 1957–1960), 2.78–83Google Scholar.

11. For example, based on a close reading of “Yao lue,” Sarah Queen, “Inventories of the Past,” 70, argues that, if we take seriously the claims asserted in the postface, we can only conclude that the Huainanzi is “beyond affiliation.” Goldin, Paul, “Insidious Syncretism in the Political Philosophy of Huai-nan-tzu ,” Asian Philosophy 9.3 (1999), 165–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar, also argues against positing a particular school affiliation for the Huainanzi based on a very different reading of the text’s syncretism. Goldin views the text to be fundamentally anti-intellectual, and he asserts that its authors seek to bring the diverse ideas of pre-Qin and pre-Han texts together as a means to justify a “political state” by subduing “all philosophical disputation.” Lastly, Lau, D. C. and Ames, Roger T., Yuan Dao, 3–58 Google Scholar, forgo offering an hypothesis regarding its intellectual affiliation due to what they calls its “radial and mosaic structure” and in light of its syncretism.

12. Yu-lan, Fung, A History of Chinese Philosophy, trans. Bodde, Derk (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1952), 395 Google Scholar.

13. Wallacker, Benjamin, The Huai-nan-tzu, Book Eleven: Behavior, Culture and the Cosmos (New Haven: American Oriental Society, 1962), 2 Google Scholar.

14. Shi ji 85.2510.

15. For a discussion of this point regarding traditional taxonomies, see Mark Csikszentmihàlyi, “Traditional Taxonomies.”

16. See Lewis’s, Writing and Authority, 287–336, especially 287–308Google Scholar.

17. However, one noteworthy example of a postface composed much later than other portions of the same work is the “Tianxia” chapter of the Zhuangzi. For discussions on the date and compilation of the Zhuangzi, see Graham, A. C., Disputers of the Tao: Philosophical Argument in Ancient China (Chicago and La Salle, IL: Open Court Press, 1989), 173 Google Scholar, and his “How Much of Chuang Tzu Did Chuang Tzu Write?” reprinted in Studies in Chinese Philosophy and Philosophical Literature (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1990), 283–321 Google Scholar; and Roth, Harold D., “Who Compiled the Chuang Tzu?” in Rosemont, Henry, ed., Chinese Texts and Philosophical Contexts (La Salle, IL: Open Court Press, 1991), 79–128 Google Scholar.

18. With the exception of a Tang 唐 dynasty (618–907) manuscript fragment of the first half of chapter 15, “Bing lue,” discovered in the 1930’s in Japan on the back of a scroll containing Heian court poetry and introduced to the academic world in 1940 by Eiichi, Kimura 木村英一, “Koshohon Enanji ‘Heiryakuhen’ ni tsuite” 古鈔本淮南子兵 略篇に就いて, Shinagaku 支那學 10.2 (1940), 127–37Google Scholar and 10.3 (1941), 181–212, and since, as Le Blanc explains, Philosophical Synthesis, 63, no extant editions of the Northern Song small character edition of 1023–1063 survive except in the form of trace and facsimile copies made during the nineteenth century and subsequently printed in the first series of the Sibu congkan 四部叢刊 by the Commercial Press (1920–22), there are no extant editions of the Huainanzi that date from a period prior to the Ming dynasty.

19. On the questions of the authorship and transmission of the Huainanzi, see, for example, Blanc, Le, Philosophical Synthesis, 21–77 Google Scholar, and Roth, , Textual History, 9–112 Google Scholar.

20. Han shu 44.2145.

21. Han shu 44.2145. According to Yan Shigu’s 顏師古 (581–645) commentary on the bibliographical listing of these “Inner” and “Outer” books in the “Yiwen zhi” chapter of the Han shu (Han shu 30.1742), the former discusses dao while the latter refers to the theories of various schools of thought.

22. In Han shu 30.1741, “King An” is listed as the author of both Huainan nei and Huainan wai. However, because early Chinese bibliographers had a broad conception of authorship, this entry tells us relatively little about who actually composed these books.

23. Shi ji 118.3082.

24. Han shu 44.2145.

25. Lun heng zhuzi suoyin 論衡逐字索引 (A Concordance to the Lun heng), ed. D. C. Lau (Liu Dianjue 劉殿爵) and Chen Fong Ching (Chen Fangzheng) 陳方正 (Hong Kong: Commercial Press, Institute of Chinese Studies Ancient Chinese Texts Concordance Series, 1996), 30/148/12–13. References to the Chinese text are in the format: chapter/page/line.

26. See, for example, Forke, Alfred, Lun heng Part I, Miscellaneous Essays of Wang Ch’ung (New York: Paragon Book Gallery, 1962), 337–38Google Scholar, where Wang Chong criticizes ideas such as miraculous occurrences, supernatural forces, and the notion of immortality.

27. See Gao’s preface in Shuangdi, Zhang 張雙棣, Huainanzi jiaoshi 淮南子校釋 (Beijing: Beijing daxue, 1997) 1.1–2Google Scholar. Translation slightly modified from Roth, , Textual History, 21 Google Scholar.

28. Han shu 30.1741–42.

29. Han shu 44.2145. However, for a point of view that rejects this date for the completion of the twenty-one chapter Huainanzi, see, for example, Kanaya, Rōsō teki sekai, Enanji no shisō, 94–99. According to Kanaya, the different essays of the work were likely written over a period of many years up to the time of Liu An’s suicide in 122, and then they were edited into twenty chapters and “Yao lue” was written as a summary of this editorial process. If we accept the account given in Ban Gu’s biography of Liu An, however, the “nei pian” presented to Han Wudi was Liu An’s “inner book (nei shu) in twenty-one pian.”

30. This title was first explained by Xu Shen 許慎 (ca. 55–148) in his commentary to the work, and it was glossed as 大功 “great achievement” or perhaps “illustrious” ( Zhang, , Huainanzi jiaoshi, 2145 Google Scholar). Its single occurrence in the text is found in “Yao lue” at the end of the summary of chapter 20, “Tai zu” 泰族. See, for example, Zhang, , Huainanzi jiaoshi, 2129 Google Scholar, where the text simply states, “This is the ‘Tai zu’ ‘chapter’ of Honglie” 此鴻烈之泰族也.” Honglie became an epithet for the work, and although Gao You recognized it as such and viewed it as an honorific title, he provided a slightly different reading of these two characters, namely, 大明 “great brilliance” or “luminous” (Zhang, Huainanzi jiaoshi, Gao’s preface, 2).

31. Shi ji 118.3094.

32. Vankeerberghen, Griet, Liu An’s Claim to Moral Authority, 67–78 Google Scholar, argues that the differing accounts of Liu An’s biography in Shi ji and Han shu reflect the changing viewpoints concerning his life and work and his alleged plot to revolt. According to her, whereas the account in Shi ji is more incriminating because of its proximity to the main characters and events, the description in Han shu presents a more “balanced picture” of Liu An’s biography.

33. Roth, Harold, Textual History, 29–34 Google Scholar, mentions the two “major commentaries” completed by Xu Shen and Gao You as well as other “minor commentaries” thought to have been written by Later Han scholars including Ma Rong 馬融 (77–166 c.e.), Lu Zhi 盧植 (?–192 c.e.), Ying Shao 應邵 (d. ca. 204 c.e.), Sima Biao 司馬彪 (?–312 c.e.), and Yan Du 延篤 (?–167 c.e.). However, Roth concludes that only the commentaries of the first two minor commentaries “are supported by historical evidence.”

34. Zhang, Huainanzi jiaoshi, Gao’s preface, 2.

35. Roth, , Textual History, 56–57 Google Scholar.

36. For a discussion on the date and composition of the Liezi, see Graham, A. C., “The Date and Composition of the Lieh-tzu,” reprinted in his Studies in Chinese Philosophy and Philosophical Literature, 216–82Google Scholar. For a similar discussion on the Wenzi as well as a discussion concerning its relation to the Huainanzi, see Shumin, Wang 王叔岷, Wenzi jiaozheng 文子斠證, Zhuzi jiaozheng 諸子斠證 (Taipei: Shijie, 1964), 493–539 Google Scholar. Although it is widely held that the received Wenzi is a forgery dating from the fourth or fifth century C.E., the discovery and excavation of a Former Han tomb at Dingxian 定縣 (or Dingzhou 定州) in Hebei province in 1973 has unearthed a cache of bamboo strips containing the remnants of various classical Chinese works. A large number of bamboo strips of Wenzi were found among them. Several of the strips correspond to sections of the modern Wenzi, yet some of the strips have no counterpart in today’s version. Since this tomb #40 at Dingxian has been identified as the tomb of Liu Xiu 劉修, King Huai of Zhongshan 中山懷王, who died in 55 B.C.E., we now know that a Wenzi did indeed exist prior to this date. A plausible explanation concerning the relationship between the Wenzi and the Huainanzi is that the former was edited out of the more extensive and powerful Huainanzi and circulated after Liu An’s death and after his works had been banned. For a recent study on the Wenzi, see Blanc, Charles Le, Le Wen zi: à la lumière de l’historie et de l’archéologie (Montréal: Presses de l’Université de Montréal, 2000)Google Scholar. For a report on the reconstruction of the bamboo strips found in tomb #40, see “Dingxian 40 hao Hanmu chutu zhujian jianjie 定縣 40 號漢墓出土竹簡簡介 (Wenwu 文物 1981.8, 12).

37. Sui shu 隋書, compiled by Zheng, Wei 魏徵 et al. (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1973), 34.1006Google Scholar.

38. Tao Fangqi, Huainan Xu zhu yitong gu 淮南許注異同詁 (1881; Taipei reprint: Wenhai, 1968?). See, for example, the preface for Tao’s views on the two commentaries, 3–15.

39. Roth, , Textual History, 29 Google Scholar.

40. Su Weigong wenji 蘇魏公文集, Siku quanshu 四庫全書 edition, 1781, Wenyuan ge 文源閣, rpt. (Taipei: Shangwu, 1973). Roth provides a translation of Su’s preface along with the Chinese text in Textual History, 351–53.

41. For a discussion of this debate, see Roth, Textual History, ch. 4, “The Merging of the Commentaries,” 79–112.

42. Roth, , Textual History, 112 Google Scholar, concludes that the composite edition was likely established as early as the mid-fourth century.

43. See, for example, the Dao zang 道藏 redaction of 1445, the Liu Ji 劉績 redaction (1501), and the edition done by Mao Yigui 毛一桂 (printed 1573–1620). The first two examples actually consist of twenty-eight juan, but this arrangement does not correspond to a change in the content of the work. Rather, the additional chapters are merely the result of dividing some of the text’s chapters (namely, chapters 1–5, 8, and 13) into two smaller units. The third example mentioned above reverts to the conventional arrangement in twenty-one chapters. See Roth, , Textual History, 142, 163, and 225 Google Scholar.

44. Zhang, , Huainanzi jiaoshi, 2123 Google Scholar.

45. Huainanzi zhuzi suoyin 淮南子逐字索引 (A Concordance to the Huainanzi), ed. Lau, D. C. and Ching, Chen Fong (Hong Kong: Commercial Press, Institute of Chinese Studies Ancient Chinese Texts Concordance Series, 1992), 21/223/21Google Scholar. Subsequent references to the Chinese text will be to this edition. They are in the format: chapter/page/line. Translations are taken from a draft translation of “Yao lue” prepared by myself and Sarah Queen in the forthcoming complete English translation of the Huainanzi edited by John Major and Harold Roth. Although I will cite passages from Lau and Chen’s version of the text because it is the edition we are using for the translation project and because they do include alternate readings in their footnotes, in translating these passages from “Yao lue” I have also consulted two other editions of the text prepared by Zhang Shuangdi and Liu Wendian 劉文典. Zhang uses the Dao zang redaction of 1445 as the foundational source for the edition presented in his Huainanzi jiaoshi, and he also consults both a facsimile reproduction of the Northern Song redaction as well as the Liu Ji redaction. See Zhang, , Huainanzi jiaoshi, 2 Google Scholar. Liu Wendian’s text is based on Zhuang Kuiji’s 莊逵吉 (1760–1813) edition of the Huainanzi which was later revised by Tao Fangqi et al. See Liu, , Huainan honglie jijie 淮南鴻烈集解 (Shanghai: Shangwu, 1923 Google Scholar; reprint in Minguo congshu 民國叢書 di 5 bian, 13, Shanghai: Shudian, 1996). For a modern Chinese translation of the Huainanzi together with commentary to the text, see Kangde, Liu 劉康德, Huainanzi zhijie 淮南子直解 (Shanghai: Fudan daxue, 2001)Google Scholar. I have also consulted Charles Le Blanc and Rémi Mathieu’s translation of “Yao lue” in their complete French translation of the Huainanzi in Philosophes Taoistes tome 2 (Paris: Gallimard, 2003), 1009–1031 Google Scholar.

46. For two different opinions regarding the cosmology of the Huainanzi, especially the borrowing of a noted passage from the “Qiwu lun” 齊物論 of the Zhuangzi in the “Chu zhen” 俶真 chapter, see Blanc, Charles Le, “From Ontology to Cosmology: Notes on Chuang Tzu and Huai-nan Tzu ,” in Chinese Ideas About Nature and Society: Studies in Honour of Derk Bodde, ed. Blanc, Charles Le and Blader, Susan (Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 1987), 117–29Google Scholar, and Puett, Michael, “Violent Misreadings,” 29–47 Google Scholar. Briefly, Le Blanc regards the text’s commentary to the Zhuangzi passage to be a cosmogony, and he rearranges the lines so that they make more sense as such. Puett, on the other hand, argues that the sequence of direct quotations and line-by-line commentary is not a cosmogony at all but instead represents a “phenomenology” in which all things, if traced backward in the manner outlined by the passage from “Chu zhen,” can be shown to have been at one point “undifferentiated” from all other things in the cosmos, and, therefore, they are “fully inter-related” to them.

47. Huainanzi zhuzi suoyin 21/223/23–24.

48. Queen, “Inventories of the Past,” 66.

49. Le Blanc and Mathieu comment that, “Le chapitre XXI se distingue par son caractère nettement philosophique, à la fois théorique et pratique. Les passages du chapitre portant sur l’auteur visent à souligner l’intention, l’idée directrice qu’il a voulu insuffler a cette œuvre, soit montrer le rapport intrinsèque qui existe entre le « principe », dao, et les « affaires humaines », shi.” Elsewhere, in describing the deliberate order and relationship between the text’s twenty chapters, they go on to say, “cet ordre et cet équilibre sont fondés sur la dialectique et la complémentarité du dao et des shi. C’est précisément l’union indéfectible au dao qui donne à l’homme la capacité de s’adapter aux shi compliqués, turbulents et imprévisibles.” Thus, the capacity to adapt and respond appropriately to complex circumstances depends on an awareness of the intrinsic relationship that exists between dao and shi. See Blanc, Le and Mathieu, , Philosophes Taoistes tome 2, 999 and 1003, respectivelyGoogle Scholar.

50. Xu Shen renders the phrase da zong 大宗 as shi ben 事本 or the “origin of things.” See Zhang, Huainanzi jiaoshi, 2125n3.

51. Huainanzi zhuzi suoyin 21/223/21–23.

52. Huainanzi zhuzi suoyin 21/227/1–2.

53. Huainanzi zhuzi suoyin 21/227/14.

54. Huainanzi zhuzi suoyin 21/226/31.

55. The character 道 consists of two elements: the radical chuo 辵 “to walk through” or “to lead through,” and shou 首, a compound of the graphs for hair and eyes meaning “head” and thus with the implication of “foremost.” The earliest extant example of its meaning and usage occurs in the Shu jing 書經 in reference to the work the sage-king Yu 禹 accomplished in channeling out conduits for a river in order to prevent its overflow and the resulting devastation due to flooding. Based on its graphical components and its earliest usages, it is not difficult to see how the character came to have the meanings of road, path, way, method, teachings, to speak, to explain, and so forth.

56. Huainanzi zhuzi suoyin 21/227/13–14.

57. At various points in the translations below, where appropriate, generic pronouns such as “we” and “you” have been provided despite the absence of such characters in the Chinese text. This has been done not only to facilitate the translation into English but also because they seem implied in the specific contexts, and they help to convey the sense that this chapter serves as a reflection on and summary of the work as a whole. While attempting to remain true to the Chinese, by employing these pronouns in the translation hopefully the reader will be left with the impression that in this chapter the “we” (possibly Liu An himself speaking on behalf of the other contributors) directly addresses the audience in order to clarify points concerning this extensive and complex work. However, in using the generic pronoun “you,” I do not mean to suggest a particular or singular reader or audience for the work (such as, for example, Wudi alone, although I would not want to exclude him since we know from Ban Gu that the work was presented to him by Liu An during his court visit in 139). In addition to Emperor Wu, the audience for the text likely included the literati in Huainan and at Liu An’s court, Han imperial court scholar-officials, court historians, scholars and intellectuals of various fields of study, and other literary and philosophical enthusiasts.

58. Huainanzi zhuzi suoyin 21/227/3–4. Note that in this passage the author comes dangerously close to putting forth criticisms of the emperor which might have perilous consequences for him. However, by specifically targeting the jinxuezhe 今學者, or today’s scholars, he skillfully criticizes those scholar-officials offering persuasions to the throne without directly challenging the Han emperor.

59. There are nineteen rather than twenty chapter summaries because chapters 16 and 17, “Shuo shan” 說山 (A Mountain of Explanations) and “Shuo lin” 說林 (A Forest of Explanations), do not have their own separate summaries in “Yao lue.” Instead, they are combined into one summary. The contents of these two chapters must, therefore, be viewed by the author to be closely related. The single summary to the two chapters reads as follows (Huainanzi zhuzi suoyin 21/226/1–3):

說山, 說林者, 所以竅窕穿鑿百事之壅遏, 而通行貫扃萬物之窒塞者也。假譬取象, 異類殊形, 以領理人之意, 懈墮結紐, 說擇摶囷, 而以明事埒者也“

Shuo shan” and “Shuo lin” are the means to penetrate deeply and bore through the blockages and obstructions of the One Hundred Affairs, and penetrate into and break through the blockages and obstructions of the Ten Thousand Things. These chapters illustrate their explanations by comparisons and illustrations, and distinguish categories and differentiate forms in order to direct and order (literally, “pattern”) human intentions. They loosen and untie what is knotted and unravel and unwind what is wound up, and thereby illuminate the delineations of affairs.

60. The phrase liuhe 六合 signifies the four cardinal directions (si fang 四方) and above (shang 上) and below (xia 下), that is to say, “everywhere” or “in all directions.” See, for example, Gao You’s comment on this phrase in the “Yuan dao” chapter (Zhang, Huainanzi jiaoshi, 6n8).

61. Xu Shen provides an interesting explanation of the phrase 太一之容. He comments that it is “the qi of the Northern Pole (Star) united as one substance” 北極之氣合為一體 (Zhang, Huainanzi jiaoshi, 2130n2). Although relatively little is known about Taiyi 太一, recent archeological discoveries and new studies on Taiyi worship have shed more light on the “Supreme One” or “Grand Unity.” For example, Taiyi was apparently a god in the southern regions of China during the pre-Han period. Moreover, Taiyi was also the name of an astral body. In the Taiyi sheng shui 太一生水, a recently discovered text found in the Guodian tomb probably dating to the late fourth century B.C.E., it was conceived of as the ultimate cosmogonic force that gave birth to the cosmos. For a discussion of the paleographic references to Taiyi, see Ling, Li, “An Archeological Study of Taiyi (Grand One) Worship,” Early Medieval China 2 (1995–1996), 1–39 Google Scholar. See also Allan, Sarah, “The Great One, Water, and the Laozi: New Light from Guodian,” T’oung Pao 89.4–5 (December 2003): 237–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For analyses of the Guodian texts, see The Guodian Laozi: Proceedings of the International Conference, Dartmouth College, May 1998, ed. Allan, Sarah and Williams, Crispin (Berkeley: Society for the Study of Early China and University of California, Institute of East Asian Studies, 2000)Google Scholar; and Yi, Guo 郭沂 Guodian zhujian yu xian-Qin xueshu sixiang 郭店竹簡與先秦學術思想 (Shanghai: Shanghai jiaoyu, 2001)Google Scholar.

62. Liu Wendian’s text has wu 物 (“things”) in place of yu 欲 (“desires”) in this line, whereas both Lau and Chen’s edition and Zhang Shuangdi’s text have yu, not wu. See Liu, , Huainan honglie jijie, di wu ce, 81 Google Scholar. Zhang, Huainanzi jiaoshi, 2130n7, refers to a comment by a He Ning 何寧 (n.d.) who cites a passage in “Yuan dao” and argues that a parallel exists between the content of the chapter and the use of yu in the chapter summary. The line from “Yuan dao” (Huainanzi zhuzi suoyin 1/7/23) reads, “The sage does not make his person a slave to things, nor does he allow desires to disturb his harmony” 聖人不以身役物, 不以欲滑和. He Ning explains that the first phrase is the counterpart to the line in the chapter summary which states, “Devalue external things and honor your person” 賤物而貴身, while the second is the counterpart to the line in question. He Ning concludes that the phrase 外物 does not fit, and this explains why the Dao zang and other editions of the text write yu instead of wu. Based on this evidence and other passages in the chapter, I follow Lau and Chen and Zhang. See, for example, Huainanzi zhuzi suoyin 1/4/9 which states “The sage … does not allow desires to disturb his disposition” 聖人…不以欲亂情.

63. Huainanzi zhuzi suoyin 21/224/1–5.

64. Huainanzi zhuzi suoyin 1/1/3–8.

65. For example, Huainanzi zhuzi suoyin 1/2/16.

66. Huainanzi zhuzi suoyin 1/3–4/15–10.

67. See, for instance, Huainanzi zhuzi suoyin 1/2/11–16, 1/7/4–6, and 1/8/25–28. For a discussion of qing in the Huainanzi as well as other sources from both the early Han and the Warring States periods, see Michael Puett, “The Ethics of Responding Properly: The Notion of Qing in Early Chinese Thought,” in Emotions in Chinese Culture, ed. Halvor Eifring, forthcoming; and Vankeerberghen, , Liu An’s Claim to Moral Authority, 101–25Google Scholar.

68. Huainanzi zhuzi suoyin 1/4–5/27–22.

69. In their translation and study of “Yuan dao,” Ames, and Lau, , Yuan Dao, 139–46Google Scholar, note these quotations and parallels in their endnotes to the translation.

70. For a different rendering of this title and a study of these terms in the Huainanzi, see Roth, Harold D., “The Early Taoist Concept of Shen: A Ghost in the Machine,” in Sagehood and Systematizing Thought in Warring States and Han China, ed. Smith, Kidder (Brunswick, ME: Bowdoin College Asian Studies Program, 1990), 11–32 Google Scholar.

71. In the chapter the specific correlations between Heaven and human beings are enumerated in rich detail. These correlations account for the manner in which natural phenomena, such as the examples listed in the summary, have a great impact on both the physical makeup and the psychological and emotional disposition of human beings. The discussion of these correlations culminates with human beings joining together with Heaven and Earth to form the well-known “triad” of Han dynasty correlative cosmology. See Huainanzi zhuzi suoyin 7/55/7–16.

72. Both Liu’s edition and Zhang’s text include the two characters bingming 並明 at the end of this phrase. See Liu, , Huainan honglie jijie, di wu ce, 82 Google Scholar, and Zhang, , Huainanzi jiaoshi, 2127 Google Scholar, respectively. They both note, however, that Wang Niansun 王念孫 (1744–1832) and Yan Shigu view them to have been added to the text sometime after it was originally composed. Yan explains that they were added because of a misreading of the character yu 與 which caused the sentences of this portion of the chapter summary to be punctuated incorrectly. Specifically, rather than being the first two characters in the subsequent phrase, the characters bilei 比類 were appended to the previous sentence ending with fengyu 風雨. The characters bingming 並明 were then added to bring about agreement in composition and sound, but Yan points out that this emendation disrupts the parallelism among these four five-character phrases, and the passage also loses its rhyme. See Zhang, Huainanzi jiaoshi, 2135n26. Therefore, I follow Lau and Chen in omitting these two characters. But, unlike Lau and Chen, to preserve the parallelism with the phrase yuleiting fengyu 與雷霆風雨, I do not emend yu 與 to yu 於 in the phrase yu zhouxiao hanshu 與晝宵寒暑.

73. Brashier, K.E., “Han Thanatology and the Division of ‘Souls,’” Early China 21 (1996), 125–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar, questions the division of hunpo 魂魄 into a “heavenly” or “ethereal” component (hun) which ascends to Heaven after death and an “earthly” or “bodily” component (po) which remains with the body at death. The main target of Brashier’s critique is the hunpo dualism articulated and explained by Ying-shih, Yü, “‘O Soul, Come Back!’: A Study in the Changing Conceptions of the Soul and Afterlife in Pre-Buddhist China,” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 47.2 (1987), 363–95Google Scholar. Brashier’s study reveals that during the pre-Han and Han periods there were a range of viewpoints concerning these terms. Brashier surveys these different conceptions of hunpo and argues that Yü’s dualism belongs to the “realm of scholasticism” rather than to general beliefs regarding death. He shows that sources typically employed to substantiate this hunpo dualism, such as the Chu ci 楚辭, Lun heng, Yantie lun 鹽鐵論, and the Zuo zhuan 左傳, use these terms interchangeably, not as dual components. However, Brashier’s analysis also makes clear that the Huainanzi is one example of a Han text which does uphold this hunpo dualism. See, for example, Huainanzi zhuzi suoyin 7/57/8 and 23 and 9/67/13. Therefore, I have retained this hunpo dualism in my translation above.

74. Huainanzi zhuzi suoyin 21/224–225/27–2.

75. See the summaries to chapters 1–9, 13, 15, and 18–19 in Huainanzi zhuzi suoyin 21.224–6.

76. For clarity, I have included the corresponding chapter titles in parentheses.

77. Zhang, Huainanzi jiaoshi, 2146n2, provides a comment given by Ma Zonghuo 馬宗霍 (1897–1976) explaining that the shuai 衰 in this passage is like dengci 等次 (“in order,” “sequence,” or “place in a series”). Thus, Ma comments that the passage says “you would not know the order differentiating the small from the great” 不知小大之等次也.

78. Huainanzi zhuzi suoyin 21/226/24–27.

79. Following Liu Wendian’s edition, I emend sheng 聖 to shi 世 to preserve the parallel with the next line of this passage (i.e., xianshi 先世 and moshi 末世). See Liu’s, Huainan honglie jijie, di wu ce, 83 Google Scholar.

80. Xu Shen comments that zun 樽 means zhi 止 (“to stop, end, cease”), and liudun 流遁 is pi san 披散 (“scattered,” “dispersed”). In his notes to the chapter Zhang Shuangdi, Huainanzi jiaoshi, 2136n31, provides Gao You’s gloss on the terms 流 and 遁 from Gao’s commentary on the “Ben jing” chapter. Gao reads the former as fang 放 (“loose,” or “unrestrained,” or “effusive”) and the latter as yi 逸 (“hasty,” “fleeting,” or “ephemeral”).

81. Huainanzi zhuzi suoyin 21/225/4–6.

82. Huainanzi zhuzi suoyin 1/5–6/24–13.

83. See, for example, Huainanzi zhuzi suoyin 1/4/3, 1/4/14–16, and 1/4–5/28–8.

84. Huainan zi zhuzi suoyin 21/227/1. These three subject headings immediately follow the last lines of our summary. The complete passage reads as follows: “Thus, in these twenty essays the immanent patterns of Heaven and Earth are examined, the affairs of the human realm are engaged, and the ways of the emperors and kings are conveyed” 故著書二十篇, 則天地之理究矣, 人間之事接矣, 帝王之道備矣.

85. Huainanzi zhuzi suoyin 21/223/21.

86. For a study on the debates concerning the term zuo 作 in the late Warring States and early Han periods, see Michael Puett, The Ambivalence of Creation.

87. Puett, , The Ambivalence of Creation, 223 Google Scholar.

88. The qian 乾 and kun 坤 trigrams are the Yi jing 易經 trigrams for heaven and earth, respectively.

89. According to most accounts, Fu Xi was one of the sanhuang 三皇 (“Three August Ones”) along with Shennong 神農 and Sui Ren 燧人. Fu Xi was a legendary sage-king of China’s antiquity who was said to have invented the eight trigrams and sixty-four hexagrams of the Yi jing 易經 after observing and contemplating the patterns of the natural world. Legendary dates for his reign are ca. 2953–2838.

90. Xu Shen comments that the term Zhou shi 周室 actually refers to King Wen 文 王, the first king of the Zhou Dynasty (ca. 1045–256). See Zhang, Huainanzi jiaoshi, 2147n8.

91. Huainanzi zhuzi suoyin 21/227/6–11.

92. Narratives of cultural innovation are not at all uncommon in the literature of this period. For example, the “Fan lun” 氾論 chapter of the Huainanzi contains one such narrative (Huainanzi zhuzi suoyin 13/120/7–17). However, in “Yao lue” we see this use of historical narrative applied not to material culture but in the realm of ideas and techniques and in the composition of texts.

93. In addition to the Zhuangzi’s postface, prior to “Yao lue” the only other postface we have from the extant literature is the much shorter “Xu yi” 序意 essay from the Lüshi chunqiu which follows “The Almanacs” portion of that work. For a translation of this essay which includes the Chinese text, see Knoblock, and Riegel, , The Annals of Lü Buwei, 272–73Google Scholar.

94. There are those, however, who would not characterize the “Tianxia” chapter of the Zhuangzi as a Warring States taxonomy. Perhaps most notable among them is A. C. Graham. See his Disputers of the Tao, 173, and his “How Much of Chuang Tzu Did Chuang Tzu Write?,” 283–321. Since the matter goes well beyond the scope of this essay, I will not attempt to examine or resolve this debate on the precise date of “Tianxia.”

95. Csikszentmihàlyi, “Traditional Taxonomies,” 84.

96. Zhuangzi zhuzi suoyin 莊子逐字索引 (A Concordance to the Zhuangzi), ed. Lau, D. C. and Ching, Chen Fong (Hong Kong: Commercial Press, Institute of Chinese Studies Ancient Chinese Texts Concordance Series, 2000), 33/99–100/27–3Google Scholar. Translation slightly modified from A. C. Graham’s version found in his Chuang-Tzu: The Inner Chapters (Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Co., 2001), 281–82Google Scholar.

97. Mark Lewis, for example, Writing and Authority in Early China, 290, draws our attention to a “common polemical stance” among early Chinese thinkers during the third century B.C.E. wherein the appearance of rival intellectual traditions is linked with the political division of the world into competing “warring” states.

98. Xunzi zhuzi suoyin 荀子逐字索引 (A Concordance to the Xunzi), ed. Lau, D. C. and Ching, Chen Fong (Hong Kong: Commercial Press, Institute of Chinese Studies Ancient Chinese Texts Concordance Series, 1996)Google Scholar, 6/23/1–2.

99. Csikszentmihàlyi, “Traditional Taxonomies,” 86–88.

100. Han shu 56.2523.

101. Lewis, , Writing and Authority in Early China, 287–308 Google Scholar.

102. For example, Shi ji 17.802; 21.1071; and 112.2961.

103. See her chapter on “Contesting Emperorship: The Center of the Cosmos and Pivot of Power” in Cosmology and Political Culture in Early China (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 173–209 Google Scholar.

104. Han shu 6.160.

105. Cosmology and Political Culture, 196.

106. Huainanzi zhuzi suoyin 13/121/8.

107. For a discussion on the question of the affiliation of the Huainanzi based on a close reading of chapters 20 and 21 of the text, see Queen, Sarah, “Inventories of the Past,” especially 65–72 Google Scholar. Although both her study and my study arrive at similar conclusions regarding the author’s view of the text’s intellectual affiliation, whereas Queen compares “Yao lue” to Sima Tan’s Liujia zhi yaozhi and to Liu Xiang’s Yiwen zhi, I will devote most of my attention to the narrative in “Yao lue” and attempt to specify the author’s position on this issue by explicating much of its content.

108. Queen, , “Inventories of the Past,” 69 Google Scholar.

109. Puett, , The Ambivalence of Creation, 159 Google Scholar.

110. Shen Buhai was a native of Zheng and served Marquis Zhaoli of Han during the Warring States period. He advocated the use of administrative techniques as the most efficacious means by which the ruler could examine his bureaucracy and thereby consolidate his power. Shen required the actual performance of an official to be in strict compliance with the title of his specific administrative post. For a discussion of Shen Buhai’s life and thought, see Creel’s, Herrlee G. Shen Pu-hai: A Chinese Political Philosopher of the Fourth Century B.C. (Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1974)Google Scholar.

111. Huainanzi zhuzi suoyin 21/228/20–22. A slightly different version of this story is given in the Han Feizi. Its aim, however, is quite unlike the use of the anecdote in the passage quoted above. The main point of the story in Han Feizi’s (ca. 280–233) account is to criticize Master Shen for placing far too much emphasis on administrative techniques while neglecting the importance of law (fa 法) in governing a state, especially in regulating the conduct of state officials. See Han Feizi zhuzi suoyin 韓非子逐字索 引 (A Concordance to the Han Feizi), ed. Lau, D. C. and Ching, Chen Fong (Hong Kong: Commercial Press, Institute of Chinese Studies Ancient Chinese Texts Concordance Series, 2000), 43/131/15–19Google Scholar.

112. The “Vertical Alliance” (Hezong 合從) was an alliance formed against the powerful western state of Qin by Qi and Chu and several lesser states in the east whose kingdoms stretched vertically on a north-south axis. The aim of the alliance was to stop Qin’s expansion eastward. Gao You comments that Su Qin 蘇秦 (d. 317) sealed the Vertical Alliance. See Gao’s comment in Zhang, Huainanzi jiaoshi, 704n26. A Suzi 蘇 子 in 31 pian is listed in Han shu 30.1739.

113. Knoblock, and Riegel, , Annals of Lü Buwei, 778 Google Scholar, explain that the “Horizontal Alliance” (Lianheng 連橫) was an alliance formed against the state of Chu by Qin and several lesser states whose territory stretched from east to west. Gao You remarks that Zhang Yi 張儀 (d. 310) arranged the Horizontal Alliance. See Gao’s comment in Zhang, Huainanzi jiaoshi, 704n26. A Zhangzi 張子 in 10 pian is listed in Han shu 30.1739. Thus, although Su Qin and Zhang Yi are not mentioned in the author’s summary of this period, perhaps their names should be included in the box designating political advisors in my earlier table.

114. The Six States or Kingdoms at the end of the Warring States period were Han 韓 (403–230), Zhao 趙 (403–222), Wei 魏 (403–225), Chu 楚 (?–223), Qi 齊 (11th c.–221), and Yan 燕 (11th c.–222). They were all eventually conquered by the Qin 秦.

115. Lau and Chen omit the character guo 國 (“state” or “kingdom”) in this passage. Presumably they base their emendation on Wang Niansun’s comment suggesting that (1) lianyu 連與 should be read together, and (2) the guo is unnecessary and disrupts the series of three-character phrases which follows it. I do not view Wang’s case as sufficient to warrant emending the text, so I follow both Zhang Shuangdi and Liu Wendian in not omitting the character. For Wang’s comment, see Zhang, Huainanzi jiaoshi, 2158n32. For Zhang’s version of this passage, see Huainanzi jiaoshi, 2151. For Liu’s, see Huainan honglie jijie, di wu ce, 89.

116. Huainanzi zhuzi suoyin 21/228/16–18.

117. As we have seen in my analysis of the “Tianxia” chapter of the Zhuangzi, this type of criticism among schools or intellectuals was quite pervasive in the literature of the Warring States and Former Han periods. Authors criticized their contemporaries for being entirely too one-sided and limited in their respective pursuits. It was a common practice to attribute some insight or contribution to their rivals but in the very next comment criticize them for not doing more or for becoming blindly fixated on their particular method or technique (fangshu). For illustrations of this kind of criticism, see “Tianxia,” “Fei shier zi,” and “Xian xue.”

118. I follow Lau and Chen and Zhang Shuangdi in including the de 德 in this phrase in order to maintain the parallelism between these five-character phrases. Liu Wendian’s edition does not include this graph. Zhang cites a comment by Gu Guangqi 顧廣圻 (1770–1839) on this point (Huainanzi jiaoshi, 2158n38).

119. The “Three Kings” were Yu of the Xia, Tang 湯 of the Shang, and King Wen or King Wu of the Zhou, symbolizing the Three Dynasties in early Chinese historiography.

120. Huainanzi zhuzi suoyin 21/228/28–29. I follow Xu Shen’s gloss on the characters from this phrase. He comments that, “‘Chu yu’ is like ‘to gather, collect, store or hold.’ ‘Hu ye’ is ‘expansive breadth.’” 儲與, 猶攝業。扈冶 ,廣大也. See Zhang, Huainanzi jiaoshi, 2158n39.

121. Of course this assumes that Han Wudi received a twenty-one chapter version of the Huainanzi which included a postface similar to what we have in today’s editions. However, given the findings of this study—namely, no mention in the bibliographic or historical records of a Huainanzi in twenty chapters, the rhetorical points made throughout the chapter, the aspirations for the text suggested by the author given the social and political context surrounding its composition, and the historical narrative outlined in the chapter—such an assumption, or, rather, conclusion, is not at all implausible.

122. Vankeerberghen, , Liu An’s Claim to Moral Authority, 12 Google Scholar.

123. Huainanzi zhuzi suoyin 21/228/29–30.

124. Qi is an extremely difficult term to translate and is perhaps best left untranslated. Qi has been variously translated as breath, energy, vital energy, or life-force. Briefly, according to the authors of the Huainanzi and other Han thinkers, it is the life-force or energy that animates all existence. John Major in his book, Heaven and Earth in Early Han Thought, 30, provides a concise description of qi. Major describes qi as a “conveyor of resonant influence on the ganying principle of ‘like responds to like,’” and he argues that this idea seems to have originated with Zou Yan 鄒衍 (305–?240) and his followers in the Jixia 稷下 Academy of the state of Qi. He goes on to say that in the Huainanzi qi is viewed as a substance which condensed during the cosmogonic process to form all things in heaven and earth. It is therefore a correlative principle whereby things of the same correlative category respond to one another as imperceptible vibrations of this substance interact even over great distances.

125. See, for example, the following passages from the text pertaining to jing: 1/10/3–5, 6/49/29, 6/50/4, 6/52/13, 7/54/27–28, 7/55–56/27–6, 7/57/2–3, 7/58/27–28, 8/64/24–27, and 21/224–225/27–2. For arguably the most precise and descriptive early account of jing, as well as qi and shen, in the extant literature, see the short essay “Nei ye” from the Guanzi. For translations of this text, see Roth, Harold D., Original Tao: Inward Training and the Foundations of Taoist Mysticism, (New York: Columbia University Press, 1999)Google Scholar; and Rickett, W. Allyn, Guanzi: Political, Economic, and Philosophical Essays from Early China, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, especially, 2.15–97.

126. See, for example, Huainanzi zhuzi suoyin 3/18/19–23.

127. See, for example, Huainanzi zhuzi suoyin 7/54/27–28.

128. For a study on the principle of resonance (ganying) in the Huainanzi, see Blanc, Charles Le, Philosophical Synthesis, especially 191–206 Google Scholar.

129. Huainanzi zhuzi suoyin 21/224/24–25.

130. For discussions on the topic of self-cultivation in the Huainanzi, see, for example, Roth, Harold D., “Psychology and Self-Cultivation in Early Taoistic Thought,” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 51.2 (1991), 599–650 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Vankeerberghen, Griet, “Emotions and Actions of the Sage: Recommendations for an Orderly Heart in Huainanzi ,” Philosophy East and West 45.4 (1995), 527–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Puett, Michael, To Become a God, 259–86Google Scholar.

131. Blanc, Le, Philosophical Synthesis, 111 Google Scholar.

132. Huainanzi zhuzi suoyin 9/69/17. For passages underscoring the vital roles jing and shen play in the political philosophy of the Huainanzi, see, for example, 1/4/9–10, 6/52/7–14, 8/64/13, 9/68/11–12, 9/68/15–16, 9/69/12–15, and 9/71/17. For two studies on the political philosophy of the Huainanzi, see Ames, Roger T., The Art of Rulership, 1–164 Google Scholar, and Paul Goldin, “Insidious Syncretism.”

133. Huainanzi zhuzi suoyin 21/228/30–31. Xu Shen comments that tiao 窕 (“insufficient” or “frivolous”) should be read as huan 緩 (“indolent, remiss, negligent”). See Zhang, Huainanzi jiaoshi, 2160n43.

134. It is noteworthy that Laozi and Zhuangzi and the respective texts attributed to them are conspicuously absent from “Yao lue’s” historical narrative. Blanc, Charles Le, Philosophical Synthesis, 4 Google Scholar, argues that because both Daoism and “The Theory of Yin-Yang” are not mentioned among the many schools summarized in the narrative, there is a “strong indication that these two traditions were considered by Chapter Twenty-one as the essential philosophy of Huai-nan Tzu, precisely because they escaped the history-bound limitations of the other schools.” In his view, their teachings were viewed by the author of “Yao lue” to transcend historical contingency, and they were therefore subsumed, in large measure, in the Huainanzi’s own teachings. Although this is certainly a plausible explanation, alternatively, they may very well have been omitted because they were not seen as political advisors of the sort described in the narrative and exemplified by figures such as Duke Tai, the Duke of Zhou, Guan Zhong, Liangqiu Ju and Zijia Kuai, Master Shen, and Shang Yang. Viewed from this perspective, their absence is relatively insignificant, though Le Blanc might still be correct in asserting that the text favors teachings and techniques from Daoist and Yin-Yang theorists. This larger question can only be resolved by closely examining the content of the text’s individual chapters. As we have seen, however, Laozi and Zhuangzi are not the only major thinkers omitted from the taxonomy. Should we view their absence to be more significant than these other figures? Also, it is difficult to reconcile Le Blanc’s view with the author’s own remarks concerning the affiliation of the text. As noted above, the author unambiguously states that the Huainanzi does not uphold one viewpoint above the others. Based on this assertion and because in this study I am concerned with the author’s own conception of the work, I have mentioned Laozi and Zhuangzi alongside the legalists and Ruists in the sentence above and have not afforded them any special standing with respect to the text’s overall philosophical viewpoint.

135. Major, John, Heaven and Earth in Early Han Thought, 36 Google Scholar, explains that the “Nine Fields” of Heaven consisted of a “central circular field” surrounded by “eight radial truncated wedges” extending out in the eight directions. He goes on to say that the earthly counterpart to the nine celestial fields was the “3 × 3 grid of nine squares filling a larger square.” Major remarks that this figure was established by Zou Yan at the Jixia Academy in Qi during the third century B.C.E., and it was applied to a wide range of things such as the “well-field” system of Mencius and the “nine provinces” of Yu the Great. For the specific enumeration of these “Nine Fields” of Heaven, see Huainanzi zhuzi suoyin 3/19/19–26.

136. Xu Shen comments that the term shi men 十門 signifies “the eight directions and above and below” 八方上下也; in other words, this is yet another way of conveying the sense of “everywhere” or “in all directions” (Zhang, Huainanzi jiaoshi, 2149n18).

137. Huainanzi zhuzi suoyin 21/227/16–18.

138. On theomorphic rulership in the Huainanzi, see Puett, Michael, To Become a God, 259–86Google Scholar. Puett, , To Become a God, 285 Google Scholar, also explains that the authors of the Huainanzi have formulated a position that provides them a “means for criticizing state policy—the ruler is failing to accord with the proper patterns of the cosmos—as well as for claiming autonomy from any existing political or textual authority.”