『장자』라는 책이 이루어진 시기와 그 저자의 문제에 대해서는 언제나 논란이 되어왔다. 관봉이 그 문제를 제기한 이후, 그레이엄은 ‘원시주의자’, ‘양주학파’, ‘혼합주의자’라는 범주를 사용하여, 장자와 장자학파 이외에도 다른 이들이 『장자』 편집에 관여했음을 문헌학적으로 증명하였다. 그러나 황로학이라는 새로운 연구 환경 아래, 로쓰는 그레이엄의 분류를 비판적으로 이해한다.
그레이엄과 로쓰가 갈라지는 부분은 바로 ‘장자의 편집자는 혼합주의적 장자를 저술한 저자 중 한 사람일까, 아니면 혼합주의적 전통에 있는 다른 사람이었을까?’라는 질문에 있다. 관봉은 『회남자』의 저자들이 『장자』를 편집했을 것이라고 보고, 그레이엄은 내편의 편명이 혼합주의적 『장자』의 본문 속에 있다는 점에서 혼합주의적 저자 중 한 사람이 『장자』를 편집했을 것이라고 본다. 그러나 내편의 편명이 『회남자』에서 훨씬 더 빈번하게 발견된다는 점에서, 그것이 『회남자』의 저자들에 의해서 편집되었을 가능성이 크다는 것이 바로 로쓰의 입장이다. 한마디로 말해, 로쓰는 그레이엄을 버리고 관봉을 따르고 있다.
When the book of Zhuang zi was complied by whom is a controversial problem. Since Guan feng raised a question in argument, Graham verified the other schools which were participated in the Zhuang zi, as primitivists, Yangists and syncretists, including Zhuang zi and his school. Under the new tendency to research Hwang Lao Academy, Roth criticized the Graham's classification. Was the compiler of Zhuang zi one of the men who wrote syncretic Zhuang zi, or the another man who was based on syncretism? That was why Graham and Roth had debated. Guan feng deemed that the writers of Huai-nan zi compiled Zhuang zi, but Graham maintained that one of the syncretic authors complied Zhuang zi because the titles of inner chapters appeared in the text of syncretic Zhuang zi. The titles of inner chapters, however, could be often found in Huai-nan zi, so Roth thought they were compiled by authors of Huai-nan zi. In short, Roth followed Guan feng rather than agree with Graham.
When the book of Zhuang zi was complied by whom is a controversial problem. Since Guan feng raised a question in argument, Graham verified the other schools which were participated in the Zhuang zi, as primitivists, Yangists and syncretists, including Zhuang zi and his school. Under the new tendency to research Hwang Lao Academy, Roth criticized the Graham's classification. Was the compiler of Zhuang zi one of the men who wrote syncretic Zhuang zi, or the another man who was based on syncretism? That was why Graham and Roth had debated. Guan feng deemed that the writers of Huai-nan zi compiled Zhuang zi, but Graham maintained that one of the syncretic authors complied Zhuang zi because the titles of inner chapters appeared in the text of syncretic Zhuang zi. The titles of inner chapters, however, could be often found in Huai-nan zi, so Roth thought they were compiled by authors of Huai-nan zi. In short, Roth followed Guan feng rather than agree with Graham.