In 139 BC, Liu An presented the Huainanzi to Emperor Wu. Nowadays, most Western scholars believe that the Huainanzi has a “root-branches” bipartite structure. However, given that the author of the "Yao Lue" chapter (probably Liu An himself) asks the readers to read the Huainanzi from the beginning to its end in a successive order, and given that the text is designed in such a way as to prevent readers from “departing from the root and moving closer to the branches” (...) (離本就末), it would be self-contradictory if any “branch” chapters are placed towards the end of the Huainanzi. This thesis examines the postface of the Huainanzi (Chapter 21, “Yaolue” [An Overview of the Essentials]) in detail. Based on the internal evidence, it is argued that the Huainanzi has a “root-branches-great root” tripartite structure. Chapters 1-8 of the Huainanzi belong to the “root” and discuss “the patterns of Heaven and Earth” (天地 之理). Chapters 9-18 belong to the “branches” and discuss “the affairs of the human realm” (人間之事). Chapters 19 and 20 together form the “great root” (大本) and are devoted to the discussion of “the way of emperors and kings”. (帝王之道) Since the Huainanzi is “the book of Liu Clan”(劉氏之書), chapters 19 and 20, which outline the way of emperors and kings, are evidently the most important and authoritative chapters. 目前西方學者多以為《淮南》二十篇由「本∕道」和「末∕事」兩部分組成，此說幾成定論。然而，《淮南》後序〈要略〉既然一方面要求讀者順序閱讀《淮南》二十篇，同時明確指出不欲讀者「離本就末」，然則《淮南》二十 篇就不可能只由「本∕道」和「末∕事」兩部分組成。本論文通過分析〈要略〉文義，抉發篇中內證，指出《淮南》二十篇實由「本∕道」、「末∕事」以及「大本∕大道」三部分組成。第一部分由開首八篇組成，其論述主題為 「天地之理」。第二部分則由第九篇到第十八篇組成，其主題為「人間之事」。第三組的地位最高，由第十九篇〈脩務〉和第二十篇〈泰族〉組成，其主題為「帝王之道」。而〈要略〉指出《淮南》乃「劉氏之書」，「劉氏之書 」者，皇族之書、帝王之書也。由此可知闡述「帝王之道」的兩篇實為《淮南》之重心大本。. (shrink)

Récemment savamment rééditée, la contribution qu’Alexandre Kojève offrit à Alexandre Koyré pour son septantième anniversaire s’attache à soutenir, de manière « beaucoup moins canularesque qu’elle ne paraît l’être à première vue », une affirmation que les «procédures historiennes» ne permettraient pas d’énoncer : si les Grecs n’ont pas développé la physique mathématique alors que les savants du XVIe siècle, au premier rang desquels Nicolas Copernic, ont réussi à la faire émerger, c’est parce que les premiers étaient païens alors que les (...) seconds étaient spécifiquement chrétiens ! Seuls ces derniers, grâce au dogme de l’Incarnation, ont en effet été aptes à réussir l’universalisation de l’approche mathématique du monde. N’hésitant pas à lire cette contribution tel qu’il s’avère qu’elle a été lue, c’est-à-dire indépendamment de l’œuvre kojévienne et de sa mise en œuvre d’une «histoire raisonnée», cet article analyse les deux principales sources d’inspiration de ladite thèse, à savoir Pierre Duhem et Alexandre Koyré ; retrace la réception historique de cette contribution ; relève toutes les objections qui, à cette occasion, lui furent adressées ; et, finalement, formule quelques objections supplémentaires. Les lecteurs qui souhaiteront bénéficier de la réédition de ce texte kojévien pour le moins provocateur devraient ainsi être à même de déterminer le degré de crédibilité qu’il convient de lui accorder. * * * Having recently been expertly republished, the contribution that Alexandre Kojève offered to Alexandre Koyré for his seventieth birthday served to support, in a manner that was in fact “much less playful than it initially appeared to be”, a claim that “historical procedures” had suppressed: if the Greeks failed to develop mathematical physics where the scholars of the 16th century, the foremost of whom being Nicolas Copernicus, succeeded, then it must be due to the fact that the former were pagans while the latter were specifically Christian! Only the latter, by virtue of the doctrine of Incarnation, were deemed capable of achieving the universalisation of the mathematical approach to the world. Focussed on interpreting this contribution as it was intended to be read, in other words independently of Kojève’s work and its implementation of a “rational history”, this article endeavours to: analyse the two main sources of inspiration for the aforementioned theory, namely Pierre Duhem and Alexandre Koyré; trace the historical reception of this contribution; highlight all of the objections that it was subject to at the time; and, lastly, formulate a few additional objections. Those readers wishing to make the most of the reissue of this rather provocative Kojèvian text should thus be in a position to determine the degree of credibility that it should be afforded. (shrink)