Beyond Respecting Mencius and Criticizing Xunzi: A Return to Equal Status for the Two Sages

Mencius 孟子 took Confucius’ idea of benevolence and, based on it, developed his theory that human nature is good. Xunzi 荀子 emphasized Confucius’ idea of ritual propriety and developed his theory that human nature is bad. This juxtaposition largely came to define their philosophies and their place in the history of Confucianism. Reconciling the two has been a point of contention ever since the Han dynasty. By the end of the Han dynasty, the scales had tipped in favor of Mencius, and this favoritism continued through the Six Dynasties era, the Tang and Song dynasties and beyond. As the Mencius became canonized, the Xunzi fell further out of favor with academics. Through all this, there have still been attempts to directly reconcile and even combine the two branches of Confucianism. This is an important cultural enterprise, which has gained new force in recent years. This article threads out some of the more important arguments in this continuing discussion and advocates for viewing the two branches with equal import and authority in the Confucian tradition. two doctrines and develop a new system of Confucianism is a key issue in modern Confucian research.

In Heine's view, Plato and Aristotle did not merely represent two different doctrines. More than that, they represented two different types of human nature and the understandings of life and the universe bound up in those two types. Plato and Aristotle had their differences; indeed, they contradicted each other at times, yet each is indispensable in the history of Western philosophy. One could say that the history of Western philosophy is a footnote to Plato and Aristotle.
China, like the West, has a canonical triumvirate: after Confucius 孔子 [551-479 BCE] came Mencius  and Xunzi 荀子 [c. . Like Plato and Aristotle before them, Mencius and Xunzi have come to represent two important traditions in the history of China's Confucian philosophy. Confucius' philosophy centered on the core virtues of benevolence [ren 仁] and ritual [li 禮], and he made unifying the two his life's mission. Mencius focused on the virtue of benevolence. He proposed that human nature is intrinsically benevolent, which became the basis for the Confucian theory of human nature. This theory advocates that a sage regard goodness as his innate nature, cultivate the vastness of his life force, lift up and expand the human spirit, and "govern compassionately by following the compassion in his heart"2 and the principle of morality.
Xunzi took the opposite view. He was more concerned with the formation of the rituals of society. He formulated a "natural" theory of human nature, which he believed was motivated largely by two elements: desire and intelligence. On the one hand, desire is evil; it explains the strife and chaos in society.
On the other hand, intelligence, or artifice, drives sages to create rituals and righteousness and bring about social order, all of which are good. By engaging in rituals and righteousness, the essential nature of man is transformed through artifice, and goodness is accumulated until it becomes virtue, and the country is governed through a system of rituals, Xunzi believed. This was the path to moral governance.
It is not difficult to see that both Mencius and Xunzi represent the inheritance of Confucian thought, though they developed two distinct traditions within Confucian philosophy. Reconciling the two traditions would become an important question for later scholars. After the Qin  and  dynasties, two different schools of thought emerged around the question of the roles of Mencius and Xunzi and the relationship between the two. The first school put Mencius and Xunzi on an equal footing, acknowledging the differences in their thinking while affirming both of their contributions to Confucianism. The second school emphasized the teachings of Mencius and gave less weight to the philosophy of Xunzi. This latter school of thought later emerged as the predominant view, because the influence of the Cheng-Zhu tradition of neo-Confucianism and the Taiwan and Hong Kong schools of neo-Confucianism. However, this article argues that, from a historical perspective, the tradition that viewed Mencius and Xunzi as philosophical equals has earlier roots and, indeed, has proved the more enduring tradition. This school also has stronger interpretive power and should be considered the basic model in Confucian studies going forward.

2
The Han dynasty was an important period in the development of Confucianism. In the Records of the Grand Historian [Shiji 史記], by the historian Sima Qian , Mencius and Xunzi appear together in a collective biography. Sima Qian wrote, "Search the Confucian and Mohist literature to understand the meaning and principle of the system of rituals, do away with King Hui of Liang's search for what would profit his country, and analyze the flourishing and the decline of generations past."3 The mention of rituals is a reference to Xunzi, whereas the reference to rejecting the search for profit is a nod to Mencius. These themes were the core questions of Confucian inquiry during the Han dynasty.
Confucianism was restored and redefined during the Han dynasty with a focus on two specific aspects. The first was using Confucianism to critique the violent, autocratic nature of the Qin dynasty. The second involved reflecting on the ongoing chaos and unrest of the Warring States period  and the early Han dynasty and contemplating how to create an enduring system of rituals to preserve social order. In this sense, Mencius and Xunzi came at the right time because they provided the intellectual foundations for answering this question. This is why Sima Qian wrote a collective biography of them. In "Biographies of Confucian Scholars" [Rulin liezhuan 儒林列傳], he wrote, "However, in the regions of Qi and Lu, the educated people did not forsake the Confucian way of benevolence and righteousness.  韓詩外傳] quoted more than forty lines from Xunzi's writings and deeply reflected his influence. However, Han's theory of human nature is closer to that of Mencius, rejecting Xunzi's belief that human nature is innately evil. But although Han argues that human nature is good, he believes that goodness is something like a cocoon or an egg; it is acquired through education and cultivation: "Although man's nature is good, unless he receives help from a sage to put him on the path of the dao, he will not become a sage himself."6 This represents a clear attempt by Han to integrate Xunzi's and Mencius' theories of human nature.
The equal status of Mencius and Xunzi during this period is also reflected in the Salt and Iron conference [yan tie huiyi 鹽鐵會議], which took place during the middle of the Western Han dynasty . Significantly, the Salt and Iron conference marked the emergence of Confucians as a political force. It is noteworthy that the scholars in attendance at the conference cited many of Mencius' remarks on benevolent governance, benefiting the people, and other topics; they also quoted the works of Xunzi and directly referred to Xunzi himself. This indicates that the philosophies of Mencius and Xunzi had become ideological tools used by the literary elite to criticize the government policies of the time. Although the equal status of the two greats remained the prevailing philosophy throughout the Western and Eastern Han periods, the relative influence of the two philosophers subtly shifted. The neo-Confucian Xu Fuguan 徐複觀  said, "The general view during the early Western Han period was that Xunzi was more influential than Mencius."7 Lu Jia, Jia Yi, Han Ying, and others were clearly more influenced by Xunzi than by Mencius. But by the time of the Salt and Iron conference, Mencius' influence had increased steadily, to the point that his reputation appeared to be overtaking that of Xunzi. At the end of the Western Han period, Yang Xiong 揚雄 [53 BCE-18] was a clear proponent of Mencius. Yang admired the Six Classics; he viewed the later scholars of the Qin and Han dynasties with contempt because their views differed from those of Confucius, whereas Mencius, he believed, was ideologically indistinguishable from Confucius. Yang described his own relationship to the philosophy of Xunzi in the following way: "Xunzi and I are like two individuals who share a common front door and courtyard, but do not live in the same room."8 Thus, he considered Xunzi a disciple of Confucius, but not in the same way that Mencius was a disciple of Confucius; Mencius' philosophy was somehow purer. It was not until I read Mencius' books that I realized how noble is the way of Confucius…. Later, after reading the works of Yang Xiong, my respect for the doctrine of Mencius only grew…. I had not heard of Xunzi until later, when I came across his books. A careful examination of Xunzi's words reveals that at times they seem to be not quite pure and correct, but if one seeks to understand Xunzi's purpose, he will find that there is little that is inconsistent with the philosophy of Confucius.9 Han Yu's evaluation of Xunzi was as follows: "Mencius is ideologically pure; Xunzi and Yang Xiong are pure overall, but both have their small flaws."10 Therefore, although at that time Han criticized Xunzi for being insufficiently ideologically pure, he also believed that Xunzi's differences from Confucius amounted to only small flaws.
But in later works it seemed that Han's opinion of Xunzi had evolved since his earlier writings. Han wrote in a later work that Confucianism had its own orthodoxy, which was passed down from the ancient kings Yao 堯, Shun 舜, Yu 禹, Tang 湯, Wen 文, Wu 武, and Zhou Gong 周公 to Confucius, but "from Confucius, these teachings were passed down to Mencius, and after the death of Mencius they were lost."11 Han also wrote of Confucius: "Some of the selections he made did not capture the essence of the way, and he wrote some discourses, but they were not complete."12 Han excluded these discourses from the Confucian orthodoxy that he developed, reflecting again the preference among scholars at that time for Mencius.
But After the death of Confucius, there were many men who toured the country spreading clever sayings and heretical philosophies. If you want to truly understand the way of the sages, there is no better way than to read the books of the four gentlemen, Mencius, Xunzi, Yang Xiong, and Han Yu. If you do not, your understanding will be only superficial.19 Su Xun said, More than a hundred years after the death of Confucius, Mencius was born; decades after the death of Mencius, Xunzi was born; after Xunzi's death, there was a long gap of over two hundred years before the next great figure, Yang Xiong, appeared. After Yang Xiong's death, there was no one to carry on the Confucian orthodoxy for over a thousand years, until the time of Han Yu.20 The idea that the two were essentially equal continued to enjoy broad acceptance among scholars of the period, with Ouyang Xiu 歐陽修 [1007-1072] representing just one example. Ouyang admired Mencius, saying, "After Confucius, it was Mencius who best understood the Way."21 But he also 18 Liu Tao  Xunzi was not, indeed, pure overall; rather, he had many contradictions. During the Northern Song dynasty, the neo-Confucian Guan 關 and Luo 洛 schools were only folk traditions. However, Wang Anshi's 王安石 [1021-1086] new school was truly influential and had the government's ear. For this reason, it is also worth considering Wang's views on Mencius and Xunzi. On the basis of his writings, the academic world generally believes that Wang was a proponent of Mencian philosophy, and this view is not without reason, considering that he publicly praised Mencius and considered him a lifelong friend. For example, Wang once wrote, "The compiled work Huai nan zi was very popular at the time; all the scholars admired it very much and mentioned it together with the works of Mencius."29 But on a deeper inspection of Wang's philosophy, particularly his writings on legal reform, it becomes clear that he was more strongly influenced by Xunzi. For example, he subscribes to the theory of natural human nature, attaches importance to human perception, and

LIANG
Journal of chinese humanities 6 (2020) 43-63 reaches universal conclusions from the perceptions and the nature of individuals. Yet he believes that the essence of both the universal and the individual can coexist, and their coexistence is the basis for the system of music and rituals. He was most concerned with issues concerning the production of wealth and the distribution of the resulting benefits. According to one view, "Although Wang Anshi both misunderstood and criticized Xunzi and, at one point, was closer in his philosophy to Mencius, ultimately, his thought can be characterized as the intellectual inheritance of Confucius , you will find that the two share quite a few similarities in their views on rituals. This is by no means accidental, yet Li Gou mentions Xunzi only twice in his collected works, which is puzzling."32 He also wrote, "Li Gou never discussed Xunzi's theory of ritual, yet it was the source for his own theory of ritual…. This is a phenomenon that we must consider seriously when studying Li Gou's thought."33 This phenomenon that Xia Changpu points out, I term "the invisibility of Xunzi". Some scholars consciously or unconsciously accept and use Xunzi's thought, but omit or deliberately avoid mentioning Xunzi. This occurred for several reasons. First, at that time, there were many misunderstandings about Xunzi's theory of human nature. Some believed the theory advocated for a view of human nature as unequivocally evil, denying human moral subjectivity, which was not in line with the Confucian orthodoxy of the time.  , Cheng-Zhu neo-Confucianism received official recognition, and the preeminence of Mencian philosophy finally became mainstream in academic circles. The Mencius became part of the Confucian scriptures, while The Xunzi was no longer considered among the Confucian classics and was even removed from the Confucian temple during the Ming dynasty . During this period, although some scholars continued to defend Xunzi, they made little headway in mainstream academic circles, and Xunzi's philosophy was relegated to the role of invisible influence.

4
The official ideology of the Qing dynasty was Cheng-Zhu neo-Confucianism, so admiring Mencius and denigrating Xunzi was elevated to the status of official policy. But, at the same time, the voices calling for the equal status of Mencius and Confucius persisted, even if very faintly, beginning with Fu Shan 傅山  and Fei Mi 費密  in the early Qing dynasty and reaching a peak in the Qianjia 乾嘉 period . An important theme of Qing LIANG Journal of chinese humanities 6 (2020) 43-63 dynasty Confucianism was reflecting on the errors of neo-Confucianism and restoring the systems of ritual and music based on the affirmation of human perceptual life. Xunzi emphasized rituals and called on people to pursue both righteousness and individual benefit. He attached importance to the role of reason yet did not deny emotional desires and, indeed, provided a philosophical explanation of such desires. For these reasons, Xunzi's philosophy was highly valued, and many called for him to be considered as the equal of Mencius.
Some scholars in the Qianjia period returned to a philosophy encompassing the thought of both Mencius and Xunzi. Some achieved this via Wang Anshi's practice of "flying the flag of Mencius while practicing the doctrine of Xunzi." Although the ideas advocated by these scholars were nominally those of Mencius, in fact most of them originated in the thought of Xunzi. However, others were more open in their defense of Xunzi.
Dai Zhen 戴震 [1724-1777] was among those who demonstrated the influence of Xunzi less explicitly. His On the Meaning of Mencius [Mengzi ziyi shuzheng 孟子字義疏證] on the surface is an interpretation of The Mencius, but his theory of human nature argues that the body is the basis of consciousness and that rationality and desire can coexist. This is similar to Xunzi's epistemology, which advocated for the importance of both righteousness and material gain and emphasized both emotion and knowledge. For this reason, modern scholars generally believe that whereas Dai "borrowed the name of Mencius,"34 in the words of Zhang Taiyan 章太炎 , his thought is more closely related to that of Xunzi. Although he concurs with Mencius' view that human nature is good, Dai Zhen's commentary on human nature again is more closely related to the doctrine of Xunzi.35 Another group of scholars supported the philosophy of Xunzi more directly through a textual analysis of his works. Han dynasties. I have read all of Xunzi, and I know that Xunzi's theory is pure and his language is rich and fluent.36 Here, Xie Yong shows that the close comparisons between Mencius and Xunzi have a long history. Xie Yong also agrees with those who argue Xunzi's philosophy is "pure overall" with only small flaws. Xunzi's discussion of whether human nature is fundamentally good or evil has become one of the greatest points of contention in the history of Confucianism: the reason that the neo-Confucians preferred Mencius over Confucius had much to do with their rejection of Xunzi's theory of human nature. However, Hao Yixing 郝懿行 [1757-1825] wrote, Mencius and Xunzi have the same purpose. As for whether human nature is basically good or evil, there is no fundamental difference between the two. Even if you believe that human nature is good, you cannot do away with the need to teach and cultivate human nature. Even if you believe human nature is evil, you cannot forget the role of free will and one's individual efforts. On the question of purpose, there is no contradiction between the two. They simply emphasized different aspects of the same philosophy in their teachings.37 Qian Daxin 錢大昕 [1728-1804] echoed this sentiment when he wrote, In my opinion, Mencius' argument that human nature is good is in the hope that people can give full expression to their relevant abilities, so as to be happy in order to do good. Xunzi's argument that human nature is evil is in the hope that people can transform their inherent negative tendencies, so as to work hard in order to do good. Although the two have differences of opinion, they are united on the need to teach people to be good.38 Qian also wrote, Ibid., 10-11. 38 Ibid., 10.

LIANG
Journal of chinese humanities 6 (2020) 43-63 they distinguished two different types of human nature: the nature of justice and rationality and the nature of temperament. In doing so, they combined the doctrines of Mencius and Xunzi. They educated people in how to improve their own temperament, an idea that has its basis in Xunzi's theory of transforming the unhealthy tendencies in one's inherent nature.39 Thus it can be said that the Song Confucians' concept of temperament, in fact, comes from Xunzi. Some scholars, such as Ling Tingkan 淩廷堪 , argued that reason could be used to restrict and stifle people, and, instead, they advocated for using ritual to replace reason. For this reason, they placed particular emphasis on Xunzi's contributions to the study of ritual: The only people who can preserve the Way of the sages are Mencius and Xunzi. Mencius' scholarly expertise was in the Book of Songs [Shijing 詩經] and the Book of History [Shangshu 尚書], and the seven volumes in the Mencius quote these works many times. As for the Book of Rites, Mencius indicated only that he had heard of it. He likely was familiar only with the main aspects of ritual from this book. Xunzi's books, however, often retold stories from the Book of Rites. These stories often explain the essence of ritual. Therefore, Xunzi's doctrine in no way violates the aim of the sages. When later scholars respect Mencius and criticize Xunzi, then, are they not alienating themselves from ritual law?40 Mencius only understood the overall idea of the theory of rituals, while Xunzi truly described the essence of rituals. Therefore, from the perspective of the study of ritual, Xunzi's philosophy was consistent with that of Confucius. Wang Zhong 汪中 [1744-1794] undertook a detailed study of Xunzi's life and affirmed Xunzi's contributions to the study of the classics: "Xunzi's doctrine originated with Confucius, and he was credited with interpreting various Confucian scriptures…. The fact that the 'six arts' of Confucianism were able to be passed down is owing to Xunzi. Zhou Gong created the six arts, Confucius reiterated and arranged them, and Xunzi interpreted them. All three followed the same criteria."41 The late Qing scholar Yu Yue 俞樾 [1821-1907  are the same category of tax laws. They evolved organically over history. A rational analysis demonstrates that the assistance method is better than the tribute method. Of course, this analysis is not based on conscience but, rather, more closely resembles Xunzi's method of categorizing ideas. As another example, Mencius said he was skilled in the "art of discourse" [zhi yan 知言], and he claimed to be able to "find the lie in incomplete thoughts, to find where exaggerated words don't hold up, and to understand what principle is violated by unscrupulous words."44 But Mencius did not explain how he did so; he did not articulate any methods, and so it is impossible for others to master this skill by studying his methods. This is related to Mencius' emphasis on instincts and intuitive abilities; he ignores experience and cognition to a certain extent. Xunzi, on the contrary, had a systematic theory of the rectification of names and methods for analyzing concepts and propositions, and, so, Mencius' doctrine on language cannot be fully understood if it is not viewed in the context of Xunzi. In the same way, Xunzi's emphasis on rituals contributed to the development of the Confucian philosophy on ritual. He realized that rituals originate in the conflict between desire and self-interest and that the resolution of this tension is difficult but valuable. However, Xunzi's discussion of the origin of rituals is vague and is attributed simply to the artifice of the sages, an argument that was criticized by later generations. Indeed, a sage is able to form rituals not only because of his "deep deliberation and familiarity with human nature"45 but also because of his ability to "help others achieve the character and the success that they wish to achieve"46 and uphold the principles of loyalty and forgiveness. Xunzi's argument in this regard is weak.
Mencius, however, argued that human nature is innately good but only that of sages. He still believes that monarchs and the common people have natural desires and seek a way for these desires to coexist with the innate goodness of human nature. For example, King Xuan of Qi was considered greedy and lustful, but Mencius convinced him to share with the people.47 Still, Mencius lacked a systematic theory of ritual. Although Xunzi was deeply concerned about rituals, his writings contain some ambiguities on the question of how rituals come about. Xunzi and the neo-Confucians overemphasized the need for social hierarchy and paid too little heed to the importance of loyalty and forgiveness, values that are needed to put into practice Confucius' ideal that "benevolence is the basis of ritual."48 Benevolence can be realized only through rituals, and rituals must embody the value of benevolence.
From a historical perspective, changes in the relative stature of Mencius and Xunzi were closely linked to the development of the Confucian orthodoxy. Therefore, an understanding of the Confucian orthodoxy is key to understanding the relationship between Mencius and Xunzi. What is the Confucian orthodoxy? Han Yu believed, validly, that it had benevolence and justice at its core. But he understood benevolence as loving other people and righteousness as behaving correctly based upon one's circumstances. In practice, righteousness can lead to benevolence, and benevolence can also lead to righteousness. One can cultivate inner benevolence and freely carry out righteous actions49-this is the origin of Han's concept of benevolence and righteousness. Alternatively, benevolence can be realized through the creation of a fair and just system. This is Xunzi's concept of "using a fair system to propagate benevolence."50 Confucian thought contains the basis for both doctrines. It is only through the combination of the two that one can understand the complete Confucian view of benevolence and justice. The Confucian tradition, reexamined through the lens of this more complete idea of benevolence and justice, then, is the true Confucian orthodoxy, in which Mencius and Xunzi both have their natural place. The question of how to unify the two doctrines and develop a new system of Confucianism is a key issue in modern Confucian research.