The Zhuangzi as a Commentary on Kongzi

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The essay "The Zhuangzi as Commentary on Kongzi" makes a fascinating and needed contribution to the existing scholarship on the multidimensional portrayal of Kongzi in the Zhuangzi. The essay displays an admirable command of both the primary text and the secondary literature as well as traditional commentary on the issue. I can only offer only two suggestions for improving the strength of the argument, and whether they are possible or not depends in part on the allowance of space in the journal, the max limit of which I am not aware. First, it would help if the author emphasises a bit more definitively in the introduction what the novel contribution of the essay is. It seems that, to some extent at present, the essay is bolstering an already-existing hypothesis that is pulled together in the essay's form held already by Ziporyn, Littlejohn, Lin, Puett and scholarship on Han and Wei-Jin religious movements. Now, if this essay is only a bolstering exercise for an already existing piecemeal theory of the ZZ's depiction of Kongzi, that is fine too--I think the essay is still eminently worth publishing. But a clear statement of the contribution of the hypothesis would help. Second, if space allows, examination of more of the stories in the ZZ depicting Kongzi as both a sage and a self-criticising deficient would help support the argument further. Some analysis, for instance, of the Robber Zhi chapter and its ambiguous conclusion would be a fascinating addition to all this. Of course, such supplementation depends on the max length of words the journal permits, and if space is not sufficient for such addition, then this suggestion is irrelevant. Even with these two suggestions, I think the essay very much merits publication, and I look forward to further work the author may produce on this topic. 

Author Response

Now I can't find the reviewer comment to past here.

one comment was to clarify the scope of the paper I did that.

the other comment was to expand the paper. I don't have time within the 5 days to expand the paper.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an excellent and engaging paper and could be published as is, with just a couple typos corrected. Although it has always been obvious that Zhuangzi sometimes uses Kongzi to express his own beliefs and sometimes makes Kongzi the fool, this paper goes well beyond that by analyzing these modes more closely and applying original insights to Zhuangzi's argumentation.
I have just a few suggestions:

·        Line 22 and elsewhere:  I would avoid the word “destiny” for ming, as it clearly connotes pre-determination, and that is rarely if ever accurate. I think “endowment” is better.
·        Lines 146-151: Based on Analects 2:4 (“at seventy I could follow my heart's desire without transgressing the norm”), one could argue that the goal of Kongzi’s “strenuous efforts of self-cultivation”, etc. was to achieve the same kind of spontaneity that Zhuangzi argues for. Thus Kongzi’s image of the sage and Zhuangzi’s image of the zhenren are not so different after all – it’s mainly how they get there that sets them apart. Well, also the fact that the sage doesn’t “transgress the norm” while the zhenren probably does. Still, spontaneity is a characteristic of both.
·        Line 186:  “it is not one’s destiny” (or endowment).
·        Lines 236, 240: At first I misread “cut-lose” as a typo for “cut loose.” I think “cut/lose” would be better.
·        Line 273:  versus, not verses 

 

Author Response

now I can't find the comments to cut and past here. I'm sorry.

I replied to each of the second reviewers comments and incorporated them into the paper they are in highlight on the paper.