No abstract

The present article compares the two principal received editions of the Gongsun Longzi in the Daozang and the Shuofu collections. Exploring the considerable number of textual variants between these two editions, the analysis challenges the acknowledged status of the Daozang as the superior version. Instead, both the Daozang and the Shuofu editions are at times inferior or superior to one another. Therefore, in the interpretation of the Gongsun Longzi both editions need to be consulted in order to unravel certain obscure passages. Altogether, due to the generally high degree of coherence between the two editions, the understanding of the Gongsun Longzi is significantly affected by textual variants only in a limited number of cases. This further suggests that the Daozang and Shuofu editions do not represent two separate lines of transmission but rather two textual witnesses of a common line. 
Cet article compare les deux principales éditions reçues du Gongsun Longzi, recueillies respectivement dans le Daozang et dans le Shuofu. L’analyse des multiples variantes textuelles entre les deux versions conduit à remettre en question la supériorité généralement admise de celle du Daozang. En réalité, chacune des deux éditions est suivant les cas supérieure ou inférieure à l’autre. Pour interpréter le Gongsun Longzi il convient par conséquent de consulter l’une et l’autre si l’on veut éclaircir certains passages obscurs. Dans la mesure où dans l’ensemble les deux éditions présentent un degré élevé de cohérence entre elles, les cas où la compréhen­sion du texte est affectée de façon significative par les variantes restent finalement peu nombreux. Ce qui suggère que les versions du Daozang et du Shuofu représentent non pas deux lignées séparées de transmission, mais plutôt deux témoignages d’une seule et même lignée.

No abstract

The present article explores the applicability of the term "rhetoric" in a non-Western context and, in particular, the legitimacy of such an attempt in the case of Early China, where the Warring States period is traditionally considered as the golden age of early Chinese "rhetoric". The pre-imperial and early imperial received literature provides good evidence for the employment of a well-established and clearly defined set of argumentative techniques in everyday political practice in ancient China. No handbook on such techniques has been handed down, and a proper term to define them as part of a broader, more structured activity that could match Western "rhetoric" does not appear until the medieval period. The article argues, however, that by applying a more fluid concept of "rhetoric" and by extending its scope beyond and across cultural boundaries it is not only possible but also legitimate to a certain extent to talk about a rhetorical tradition in the case of ancient China as well.

Despite careful proofreading, the name of author Jiāng Xiàngdōng (江向東) was misspelled in the first edition of this book. This has been corrected. We apologize for the mistake.