Xun Zi did not write the "Non-Twelve Sons" to disparage Si Mengduan's new testimony
Dai Qiubin
Published in Journal of Xichang University (Social Sciences Edition), No. 3, 2015.
About author:Dai Qiubin (1992-), male, Han ethnicity, Sichuan Anyue people, published this article as a master's student, studying Chinese philosophy at the School of Political Education, Sichuan Normal University, research direction: Confucian classics.
Abstract: To this day, most scholars still hold the view that the derogatory part of the "Non-Twelve Sons" is written by Xunzi himself, and only a few scholars such as Zhou Chicheng have confirmed and claimed that it is a forgery. However, Mr. Zhou's examination is still insufficient or even omission, and this article mainly examines these deficiencies, and strives to further falsify this part with more perfect and reasonable inferences. This article first examines the intention of the writing of this part, and proves its falsity by the contradiction between the writing of this part and other parts; and re-examines the author of this part, arguing that the part was composed by Zi You's later studies, and that Xun Zi Hou xue introduced Xun Wen. It is hoped that with this examination, people will more accurately understand Xunzi's thought, and then advocate the attitude of learning by arguing with academic theories and rejecting the view of the portal.
Keywords: Xunzi; Non-Twelve Sons; Si Meng School; Portal View;
Examining the study of Xun Meng, there are differences; Xun Meng's differences have also been around for a long time. After the fall of the Two Song Dynasties, the science of science flourished, and the theoreticians respected mencius's study of the mind, because they saw that Xun Wen had degraded the Si Meng school, so there was a chain reaction of partial generalization and rejection of Xun Zi's entire theoretical system. As stated in the General Catalogue of the Four Libraries, the book xunzi "is the most honest and honest, and the two articles of non-twelve sons and sexual evil" [1] vol. 91. In recent years, there has been a lot of research on Xunzi's "sexual evil" thought, so that its true face has gradually been revealed, and then it has been understood and recognized by more scholars. The "Non-Twelve Sons", referred to by Song Ru, is often in its derogatory part of the Si Meng School, and to the present academic circles, most scholars still hold the view that this passage came from Xun Zi's hand. Throughout the thousands of years of national history, only a few people have doubted the authenticity of this period. Fortunately, not long ago, Mr. Zhou Chicheng more systematically verified that this paragraph was not from Xunzi's hand. Its examination is comprehensive and sufficiently powerful, and although individual views still need to be further examined to obtain the full picture, this article is consistent with the position that the paragraph is forged. This article is based on the research results of predecessors, and mainly exerts its own opinions, especially on the writing intention and authorship of this paragraph, and further proves that this paragraph is a forgery. It should be noted that Xunzi is not the tenth son, and he does have a slight word for the study of Si Meng, but in the final analysis, he did not want to criticize Zi Si, Mencius, and the first ten sons side by side. This article identifies the authenticity of the "Non-Twelve Sons" article that disparages Si Mengduan, hoping that scholars can correctly understand Xunzi's thought, and advocating the attitude of learning by arguing with academic theories and rejecting the views of the portal.
First, the current situation of the research is outlined
Judging from the attitude of the formers to this paragraph, it can be roughly divided into four categories: the first is to believe that the paragraph was written by Xun Zi and reject it, represented by Cheng Yi and Su Shi, and song Ming Confucians and even contemporary scholars have made peace with it; the second type is to doubt that the views or writing of the paragraph are unreasonable, but they have not been examined in detail, and the doubts are gone, represented by the records of the "Fa Yan And Junzi" and Lu Jiuyuan; the third type is to doubt the authenticity of the paragraph and put forward speculations, Wang Yinglin opened his wind first, and Zhu Yizun, Kang Youwei and a few others followed him The last category is to confirm its falsity and multi-party arguments, and only Mr. Zhou Chicheng has been visible so far. In general, since the distinction between Xun and Meng in the Middle Tang Dynasty was clearly proposed, most Confucians belonged to the first category, while the other three categories were relatively few.
Among the scholars who belong to the first category, some are euphemistic, some are fierce, and the view of the portal jumps out of the paper. As Hao Jingzhi said: "The two sages and the holy ones have passed it on, and the way of Confucius has benefited those who have promoted the great, and the one who has been painfully slandered ... Sophistry and sabotage of Taoism, from the beginning of the situation"[2] Vol. 83. Nowadays, people learn from it, and many people believe that this passage was written by Xunzi himself without examination. For example, Mr. Sun Qian noticed a change in the style of the paragraph, but he did not examine the paragraph with a skeptical attitude, but thought that Xunzi was too disgusted with the theories of the Simeng School to "abandon the language commonly used by the Ten Sons... And indignantly criticizing it with 'Confucianism' and 'Lowly Confucianism'"[3] is debatable. He also expressed doubts about the paragraph's unverified theory of sexual goodness, but explained it in terms of the General Catalogue of the Four Libraries, which was perfunctory. The research is not deep, or it is too deeply influenced by traditional theories, so that the doubts are not reasonably explained.
Remarks that belong to the second category are recorded in the "Fa Yan Junzi" article about the doubts of the times: "Sun Qing is not a book of several families, but also a book. As for Zi Si and Meng Ke, weird! [4] The third type of remark in the Book IX Gentlemen is headed by Wang Yinglin: "Xun Qing is not the twelve sons, quoted in the Han Shi Wai Biography, zhiyun ten sons and no sons si, Mencius, foolishly xun qing non-zi si, Mencius, gai qi disciples such as Han Fei, Li Si and the like said to destroy the sages, should be based on the "Han poems" as the right" [5] "Volume 10". Some people such as Zhu Yizun and Kang Youwei agreed with this view, but their views were still superficial and insufficient. Only Mr. Zhou's article repeatedly listed ten doubts to prove its falsity, which was fully powerful and opened a thousand years. If Wang Yinglin is the first person to see its falsity, then Mr. Zhou is the first person to fully demonstrate its falsity. Although this article has a slightly different attitude from Mr. Zhou in the handling of individual doubts, this article is consistent with Mr. Zhou in the position that the paragraph is a forgery. The differences between this article and Mr. Zhou will be discussed later. Overall, this paragraph is full of doubts, but it is surprising that many scholars for more than a thousand years have rarely doubted it. Insightful scholars have said in one sentence, "Later generations of Confucians criticized Xun, mostly obeying the view of the portal of Mengxue." Preconceived stereotypes are not easy to break, so it is reasonable that they have not been able to identify falsehoods. However, we cannot use this as an excuse to be at ease, and this article hopes to continue Mr. Zhou's work, fully explore the doubts, prove their falsity, and use this to advocate the attitude of learning by arguing with academic theories and rejecting the views of the portal.
Second, the insight and blindness of existing research
From the above description, it can be seen that the only scholar in the academic circles who is skeptical and fully debating this paragraph is Mr. Zhou Chicheng, but his research work has fully covered all the results of others. This section mainly analyzes and discards its research and doubts, inherits its reasonable parts while discovering its deficiencies, and then examines these doubts again.
(1) Zhou Wen's powerful examination of whether this paragraph is a forgery
The ten doubts raised by Mr. Zhou are: the first and second points are the "structural imbalance" between this paragraph and the first five groups of the "Non-Twelve Sons"; the third point is that the relationship between the last group and the fifth group and the relationship between the first five groups is different; the fourth point is to argue that the number of words in the last group is much higher than that of the other five groups; the fifth point is to believe that the juxtaposition of "ZiSi and Mencius" began in the Han Dynasty; and the sixth point is to use the individual sentences of the "Confucian Effect" chapter to be similar to the paragraph, and to use the attitude towards Mozi as the intermediary to falsify The seventh point is to falsify this paragraph in comparison with the other two consecutive criticisms of Zhuzi's words; the eighth point is to start from Wang Yinglin's theory and use some of the verses of the "Han Shi Wai Biography" to falsify it; the ninth point is to falsify on the basis of denying that some scholars believe that Si Meng's "five elements" theory is Mencius's theory of sexual goodness; and the last point is to use the Yin-Yang Family's Five Elements Theory and the Mencius Outer Chapter as a forgery to deduce the conclusion that the paragraph was made in the name of Han Ru to Si Meng. [6]
It has to be admitted that most of Mr. Zhou's research and inferences are reasonable and powerful, such as the first, second, and fourth points of the examination of the language style, which are obvious; although the third, sixth, and seventh points are not easy to be revealed, Mr. Zhou discovered and vigorously demonstrated, which reflects his profound accumulation and broad vision; the ninth point is also quite powerful in refuting the ancillary arguments of other scholars; and the perspective of the eighth point is also extremely reasonable. Even in the second part of his article, there are more similarities than differences in XunMeng's theory, and the comparison of texts is repeatedly listed, which is fully detailed. All of the above statements are implicitly consistent with the point of view of this article: Imagine that after the five groups of discourses, a group of discourses with different language styles suddenly appear, and there must be a cause for this change, otherwise it should be consistent with the former in order to seek smooth writing; other places that criticize the sons of foreign studies do not see mencius's name, but there is one here, is it not suspicious? This passage has many similarities with the "non-ten sons" part of the text quoted in the "Confucian Effects" and the "Han Shi Wai Biography", and such a phenomenon occurs, or the language habits are similar, or they are borrowed from each other. From this, we can rightly say that this paragraph is indeed a forgery!
(2) The inadequacy of Zhou Wen's examination
Unfortunately, Mr. Zhou's research still has shortcomings, such as the argument of the fifth point is self-mutual argumentation, which is not convincing; the tenth point, "What Han Rutuoming Said", can be refuted according to the excavation of the Bamboo Jane of Guodian Chu's Tomb "Five Elements". In addition, Mr. Zhou also overlooked two important doubts, the first point is that the intention of the paragraph was not examined, and the discovery of this doubt can also be strongly falsified; the second point is that the "Xunzi" has four other places that mention "Zi Bow" and "Zhongni", but this place unusually mentions "Ziyou" and "Zhongni", which is also a very suspicious point. In addition, according to my understanding, Mr. Zhou's article is to show that the "Sexual Evil" article is not written by Xunzi himself by falsifying the paragraph; this article is also based on falsification as a means, but to illustrate that placing the paragraph together with the ten sons to criticize is not Xunzi's original intention, but the evil consequence of the portal prejudice, hoping that scholars will not learn from the portal's view. The above articles are the differences between this article and Zhou Wen, which are specifically manifested as follows: Zhou Wen concluded that the paragraph was written later than Han Bao, but this article is suspicious of this; Zhou Wen believes that the author of this paragraph is Xunzi Houxue, and this article advocates that most of it was written by Ziyou Houxue, and that Xunzi Houxue introduced it into Xunwen. It should be emphasized that this article also holds the position that this paragraph is forged, but there are slight differences in specific views.
Third, the supplement and inference of new and old doubts
This section first re-examines the deficiencies or unreasonable points that Mr. Zhou has examined, and then examines the doubts he ignored, so as to further falsify the paragraph and put forward more reasonable conclusions.
(1) Zhou Wen's individual doubts about the new examination
Several doubts about Zhou Wen's insufficient examination are: several problems in Zhou Wen's examination of the time when the book was written, the statement that "Zi Si and Mencius were only known to the Han Dynasty", and the three points of the paragraph being written by Han Rutuo.
1. The relationship between this paragraph and the similar sentences of the "Han Shi Wai Biography" and the time of its completion are newly examined
The hanshi waibiography is similar to the "non-twelve sons" as follows:
The fools of the world, who play the role of heresy and treacherous words, confuse the world, deceive the fools, and make them confused and ignorant of the existence of chaos, are the disciples of Fan Sui, Wei Mu, Tian Wen, Zhuang Zhou, Shen Zhi, Tian Biao, Mo Zhai, Song Xi, Deng Yan, and Hui Shi. These ten sons, all of whom are obedient to the wrong, have heard miscellaneous knowledge, but they do not teach the ancients, do not have the lawless kings, according to the old sayings, they are self-made, and they do not meet and obey each other. Therefore, it is said that the work of the ten sons is not enough to conform to the road, the beauty of customs, and the discipline of the program. However, their own reasons and words are reasonable, enough to deceive the fools, and to confuse and despise, which is the sin of the ten sons. [7] As can be seen from the quotation, there are three passages in the Han Shi Wai Biography that are not found in the first ten sons of the text, but are very similar to this passage. That is, the term "Smelling Miscellaneous Bo", the Han Shi Wai Biography is used to comment on the Ten Sons, and this paragraph is used to evaluate Si Meng; "Case (according to) the old creation", the Han Shi Wai Biography is used to describe the doctrine of the Ten Sons, and this paragraph is used to describe the study of Si Meng; the Han Shi Wai Biography summarizes the preceding text with "It is the sin of the Ten Sons", and the paragraph summarizes the preceding text with "It is the sin of Ze Zi Si and Meng Ke". If you look closely, you can find that there are doubts in all three places. To be fair, it is okay to evaluate the ten sons by "smelling miscellaneous knowledge", but it is inappropriate to evaluate Si Meng. It is possible to describe Si Meng's doctrine as "case (according to) the old creation theory", but it is inappropriate to describe the ten sons. The generalization of this paragraph is different from the first five groups of generalizations of the Non-Twelve Sons, but it is similar to the generalization of the "Han Shi Wai Biography", which is also very suspicious. It must be admitted that there are several languages in this passage that are extremely similar to the "non-ten sons" part of the "Han Shi Wai Biography", so the two must have a borrowing relationship. As for the specific borrowing relationship of the three similarities between the two texts, Zhou Wen unified that it was later than Han Bao's Xunzi Houxue borrowed the sentences of the "Han Shi Wai Biography" and imitated some of the sentences of the "Xunzi". But there are still unconclusive doubts here: if Xunzi Houxue is determined to belittle Si Meng and add to the ten sons of Foreign Studies, then why not directly imitate the language style of the first ten sons, and look for excerpts in the Confucian Effects and the Han Poetry Wai Biography? Wouldn't it be more difficult to recognize the style of directly imitating the first ten sons? Moreover, this explanation still does not bypass the question of why "Ziyou" and "Zhongni" are combined. Therefore, in terms of the time of the completion of this paragraph, due to the lack of powerful materials, this article advocates leaving it unexamined for the time being, waiting for strong evidence to emerge or asking the Fang family with a more comprehensive vision to criticize and correct the views of this article; although it is not possible to confirm the specific time of writing, it can be judged according to the upper limit of the "Five Elements" of the Bamboo Book, and then according to the account of the "Fa Yan", that is, the paragraph must be written between the end of the Warring States and the end of the Western Han Dynasty. On the question of the author of this paragraph, this article advocates that it is not Xunzi Houxue, but Ziyou's Post-learning, and XunziHouxue only introduces the paragraph. The speculation that can be made in this article is that the main body of this passage is most likely the work of ZiYou's later studies, which he used to criticize the Si Meng school, and it is likely that there are several other similar parts that criticize other Confucian schools. Later, after the decline of the Ziyou clan, other chapters were either burned or scattered, but Xunzi Houxue regarded this part as an argument that could "promote Xun Xun and suppress Meng" and continued after the "non-ten sons", so that the passage has the honor of surviving to this day.
2. "Si Meng also said that it was only in the Han Dynasty" on the new examination
Zhou Wen advocated that this kind of merger was only found in the Han Dynasty, and used the narrative of the Fa Yan to argue. Mr. Zhou's formulation is acceptable, but this method of argument is weak. Because the words quoted in the "Fa Yan" are exactly the words of the "Non-Twelve Sons", the use of the cited text to prove that the original text should be written in the Han Dynasty, which is a repeated self-justification. If this is true, wouldn't it be the first time that any dynasty would have quoted the text, and that the text would have been written at the time it was cited? Therefore, this argument is not convincing. In the literature that is now visible, the combined name of Zi Si and Mencius should be the first appearance in the "Non-Twelve Sons", so the more important question is to determine the time when the paragraph was written: when the paragraph was written, then the Si Meng and Meng's first appearance. However, the time of the writing of this paragraph is still inconclusive, so this doubt is actually a suspicion of no signs, and there is a suspicion that mediocrity is self-disturbing.
3. "The name of Han Ruto Si Meng is forged as this paragraph" on the new examination
The "five elements" idea criticized by this paragraph, combined with the excavation of cultural relics in recent years, can be seen that the reference in this paragraph from the name of Han Rutuo is unreasonable. Because in 1993, the tomb of Guodian Chu in Jingmen, Hubei Province, excavated the bamboo Janes named "Five Elements", which already had a basically complete part of the "Classic". Archaeologists have identified the age of Guodian Chu's tomb as "about 300 BC", which means that at least in the middle of the Warring States period, the Confucian "Five Elements" theory of the "Classic" has basically taken shape. Such a han ruto name is not self-defeating. In these three points, Mr. Zhou used to argue that this paragraph was an argument made by the unknown Xunzi Houxue of the Han Dynasty, but they were all full of doubts. In fact, on closer examination, the author of this paragraph should be Zi Youshi houxue, and the time of completion of the book is difficult to confirm because of insufficient evidence.
(2) The paragraph is written with the intention of examination
The "Non-Twelve Sons" section derogatorily suppresses Si Meng's passage as follows: The first king of the Law without knowing his unity, but the drama is ambitious, and he smells miscellaneous. The case is said to be the five elements, very secluded and classless, hidden and unspeakable, closed and unsolved. The case adorns its words and only respects the words: this true gentleman's words also. Zi Si sang, Meng Ke and Zhi, the worldly ditch was still Confucian, and He did not know what was wrong, so he accepted it and passed it on, thinking that Zhongni and Ziyou were thicker than the future generations, and it was the sin of Zi Si and Meng Ke. [8] 94-95 It can be seen from the phrase "I think that Zhongni and Ziyou are thicker than the hereafter", and this paragraph should be composed by a certain school of scholars within Confucianism for the name of the sacred tradition. His author intends to disparage the Si Meng school in this way, arguing that the study of Zhongni and Zi You was not inherited and carried forward by the doctrine of the Si Meng school, but by the school of his author. In the "Non-Twelve Sons" section, all the non-ten sons before this paragraph are schools other than Confucianism, and at the end of the "Non-Twelve Sons" chapter, the "Rong Rong" of Zi Zhang, Zi Xia, and Zi You is degraded. Therefore, Xun Zi's intention to write the "non-twelve sons" chapter is undoubtedly also to break away from foreign studies and promote Confucianism, which is evident from the "general strategy, words and deeds, and unified categories" advocated in the same article. Of course, there is a part of the "Non-Twelve Sons" that excludes foreign studies, that is, the ten sons before this paragraph are all foreign studies; there is also a part that degrades the other sons and highlights their own status, that is, the discussion of the three schools of Confucianism at the end of the chapter. However, his depreciation of the Confucian Zi Zhang, Zi Xia, and Zi You's post-learning stayed on the superficial contents of clothing, language, and manners, and did not criticize his theory; on the other hand, this paragraph greatly attacked the theories of the Si Meng school. And according to the logic of the controversy over the name of the Sacred Tradition, the SiMeng school, as an internal Confucian school, should be placed in the same way as Zi Zhang, Zi Xia, and Zi You, rather than criticizing it together with the Ten Sons of Foreign Studies in the versions seen today. It can be seen from this that although the writing intention of this paragraph is similar to that of this paragraph, it is easy to pass the test in confusion, but at the level of criticism, it is obviously inconsistent with the main purpose of Xun Zi's "non-twelve sons", and it is even more illogical to put the paragraph in the first ten sons to criticize together. Is it possible that Xun Zi is not divided by school here, but believes that the study of Si Mengzhi is "heresy and treacherous", and is too disgusted with the theories of the Si Meng school, so he puts the Si Meng school in the outer school of ten sons to criticize together? This kind of argument is pale and powerless in the face of Zhou Wen's examination. Zhou Wen compared Xunzi's affirmation of Mencius in detail, and even repeatedly listed the similarities between the two texts, which is enough to show that Xunzi did not completely deny but judged Mengxue more fairly and objectively. Therefore, it is incomprehensible to put the hat of derogatory Si Meng duan on the head of Xun Zi and criticize it together with foreign studies.
(3) The author of the paragraph is newly examined
In this paragraph, the phenomenon of "Ziyou" and "Zhongni" is mentioned together, while in the other four places of Xunwen, "Zigong" and "Zhongni" are mentioned together. And it is at the end of the "Non-Twelve Sons" that Xunzi degrades the Confucianism of the Ziyou clan, which makes the "Ziyou" here appear abrupt. Although it is still inconclusive who the "Zi Bow" is, it is not the same person as the "Zi You", this is certain. So the question is, is the "sub-game" a mis-copy of the "sub-bow"? Or is it what it is? According to the Qing dynasty Guo Songtao, "Xunzi has repeatedly said Zhongni and Zi Bow", and because there is a sentence at the end of this article that detracts from the Confucianism of the Zi You clan, he advocates that "this 'Zi You' must be a mistake of 'Zi Bow'". The views of Kong Fan and Gao Heng are similar, and Mr. Gao Heng also has certain arguments[9]149. Zhou Wen ignored this doubt, and his citation was called "Zi Bow". In fact, this question is very important: if there is no special reason, Xunzi and even its later studies cannot abandon the commonly used "sub-bow" and switch to "sub-game". According to the "Fa Yan" record of the doubts of the people at the time, this paragraph must have existed in the "New Book of Sun Qing" compiled by Liu Xiang. Then the possibilities of the author of this paragraph roughly include: 1. Xunzi; 2. Han Fei, Li Si; 3. Dong Zhongshu; 4. Liu Xiang; 5. Xunzi Houxue (unknown) and so on. According to Xun Zizhi, the possibility is very small, because the style of the passage is very different, not like Xun Zi's handwriting. Even if it is considered to be the style of different periods, it is not appropriate, because according to Mr. Liao Mingchun's research, "Non-Twelve Sons" was composed by Xunzi In his later years[10], and his thinking was already mature, the style was stable, and it would not be so different from the previous text. Other theories can be refuted by his life and the lessons he passed on. It is difficult to exhaust the possibilities of speculating on the author of this paragraph by enumeration, but since the place respects "Ziyou", it can also be deduced that one possibility can be deduced, that is, Ziyou's later learning.
If the author of this paragraph is designated as a post-scholar of The Ziyou clan, it can explain why the style of the passage is very different (not written by XunZi himself), and it can also solve the problem that the criticism of the Simeng school involves theoretical foundations and is placed in external studies to be criticized together (the paragraph is added by others); it can also explain the question of honoring Confucius as "the first gentleman" and "Zhongni" and "Ziyou". More importantly, the Ziyou clan has an important historical place in the inheritance of the Confucian Lile, which is evident from the many chapters of the Analects and the Book of Rites. The scholar Jin Qizhen has conducted a more systematic study of it, and highly praised that "Yanzi is indeed a well-deserved authentic descendant of Confucius's liturgical thought" [11]. In the context of the controversy between the Confucian schools at the end of the Warring States period over the orthodox name, ziyou houxue, who was based on the transmission of lile and whose predecessor had been praised by Confucius, was very likely to think of himself as a true biography of Confucius, and criticize the study of Si Meng's mind from the standpoint of liturgical education. The Ziyou clan inherited the study of Confucius Lile, and the person worshipped here is exactly "Ziyou", if it is considered to be a mistranslation, wouldn't it be too coincidental and the conclusion too hasty? In the scholarship of Xun Zi and Zi You, Mr. Jin also recognized that "both of them adhered to the Confucian principle of etiquette on the fundamental issue of how to govern the country". From this point of view, the position of this paragraph is similar to the position of Xunzi, so the evaluation of the Simeng school in this paragraph is basically similar to xunzi's point of view, so it can easily confuse many predecessors, which will be discussed in detail below.
Ultimately, the question boils down to: Is the "sub-game" in this place a miscamerated? This article insists that the "sub-tour" is not copied by mistake. Xun Wen was copied for nearly a thousand years, and this was what Yang Liang of the middle Tang Dynasty saw, and other versions were the same, and most of the scholars of the Qing Dynasty did not doubt it, and only Guo Songtao advocated that it was a mistake of "Zi Bow". Guo yi "Xunzi repeatedly said Zhongni, Zi Bow", and because he had deprecated ziyou's Confucianism later in this article, that is, arbitrarily concluded that "this 'ziyou' must be 'zi bow' mistake", but he did not reflect on the inconsistencies as a suspicious point. The present-day Zan Runjiao also took Guo Zhu as the right, and quoted Gao Heng (Zan Wen mistakenly wrote "note") as saying: "Doubting 'You' is this work 'Hong', which is similar and wrong. Zihong is zi bow, and although the names of the ancients are in the same book, they are often different words..."[12]21. Although the Chronicle of the Disciples of Zhongni mentions the bow of the arm, it is true that its word is "Zi Hong", which is similar to "Hong". However, it is still inconclusive whether the "zi bow" in the Xunzi is indeed a bow with a sword arm, and some scholars still argue that it refers to "zhonggong", and there has never been a document that records that the word "zhonggong" is "zihong" or "zihong". Assuming that Xun Wen's "zi bow" is a bow with a bow, then why is it that only the "Historical Records" say that the bow of the arm is "zi hong", and the Book of Han, the Zhou Yi Commentary, etc. all think that the word "zi bow" is "zi bow"? This indicates that the "Shi Ji" itself may be wrong; and considering that the "Xunzi" was written before and the "Shi Ji" was written later, it should naturally be the "Shi Ji" quoting the "Xun Zi" statement, so under this premise, it must be that the "Shi Ji" is wrong. On the other hand, if the "zi bow" is "zhonggong", this statement is self-deprecating; even if the "Historical Record" is correct, the "Xunzi" has four words "zi bow" and never says "zi hong" or "zi hong", which is difficult to explain. Looking back at Zan again, if "bow" is changed to "you", it needs to be changed repeatedly: first take "bow" as "Hong" (according to the "Chronicle of History"), then "Hong" as "Hong" (a different word), and then "Hong" as "You" (mistakenly copied). However, Yang Liang of the middle of the Tang Dynasty saw that this was the word "you", and in the nearly thousand years of copying, the other four "sub-bows" were correct, but there were many mistakes in this doubt; and it happened that the probability of repeating three changes in the same place was extremely small and difficult to be convincing. In connection with the different styles of writing and the contradictions in the logic of the writing, it should be "sub-you" in this place, which in turn proves that the author of the main body of the paragraph is ziyou's post-learning, which is extremely likely.
(4) The "Non-Twelve Sons" section disparages the re-examination of Si Meng's paragraph
From the above discussion, it can be seen that the main body of this paragraph is most likely a work by Zi You Shi HouXue to disparage other Confucian schools, and Xun Zi Hou Xue added the main body of this paragraph after Xun Wen's "non-ten sons" in order to "promote Xun Xun and suppress Meng". His text is similar to Xunzi's basic position, which is enough to be false and true, so it was compiled by Liu Xiang and has been circulated for more than 2,000 years. It is precisely because it is the Ziyou Houxue who has become the main body of this paragraph, so the style of writing is very different, and the name of the respected teacher has also been changed to "Ziyou" to "Ziyou"; and because it is borrowed from The Later Study of Xunzi and placed after the Ten Sons of Foreign Studies, it leads to the contradiction of the writing logic. This paragraph is similar to Xunzi's position, so few people suspect it to be a forgery, and it is not impossible to quote it as a post-Xunzi study. However, the practice of adding it to the "Non-Twelve Sons", especially the practice of standing side by side with the ten sons of foreign studies, is inconsistent with Xunzi's original intention. It can be seen from this that Xunzi's thousand years of "wronged" and Xunxue's thousand-year decline are all arising from the view of the portal of his later learning. This warns those who are learners not to be clever and "well-intentioned" to do bad things because of the view of the portal.
Although this paragraph is not written by Xunzi himself, the evaluation of Si Mengzhixue in this paragraph is similar to Xunzi's basic position. The reason is that Xun Zi emphasizes the "outer king", while the Zi You clan's learning emphasizes the transmission of liturgical music, and the two are similar in the inheritance of Kong xue. Therefore, Xunzi Houxue borrowed the works of Zi Youshi Houxue, and its text was similar to the basic position of Xunzi, confusing many scholars for thousands of years. Although some people have suspected that this paragraph is not from the hand of Xunzi, they feel that it is similar to Xunzi's position, so they do not investigate deeply and do not finish it. This is probably also an important reason why most scholars do not have insight into its falsification.
Looking further, this paragraph has not been falsified for more than a thousand years, and the more important reason is that the narrow vision of predecessors and the portal prejudice of "Yang Meng suppressed Xun" are at work. In the Middle Tang Dynasty, especially after the Song and Ming Dynasties, most scholars ignored the fact that confucianism was divided into more than ten schools during the Warring States period, and held the one-sided view that non-Si Mengs must be Xun, and immediately blamed Xun without further thought. However, fortunately, the language style and the name of the master honored in this paragraph have not changed, and in recent years, the study of the Confucian triage of the Warring States has been deepened, and we have found that at the end of the Warring States period, not only the study of Xun Meng was circulating, nor was it only Xun Zi who was competing for fame and confucianism, so that a small number of scholars could identify its falsity. Although the position of this paragraph is the same as that of Xunzi, this does not mean that the appearance of this paragraph after "non-ten sons" is in line with Xunzi's original intention. XunZi's attitude toward Meng Xue is not a total denial, but a more fair and objective view of Meng Xue, which has been fully discussed in the previous article and In Mr. Zhou Chicheng's article. That is to say, Xunzi could not have critiqued the Simeng school and foreign studies together. Therefore, Xunzi Houxue placed the works of Zi You's Houxue after the Ten Sons of Foreign Studies, which was actually a dog-tailed act of continuing to sable, which was not in line with Xunzi's original intention.
IV. Conclusion
For more than a thousand years, the decline of Xun Xue has an important relationship with the "partial" words of the "Sexual Evil" and the "Non-Twelve Sons". But from today's point of view, one stems from the misunderstanding of the Confucians; the other is criticized by the Confucians, which is not from the original intention of Xunzi. People's misunderstanding of Xunxue is so wide-ranging, so long that it is so deep that there are few rivals in the history of the country. As a result, the Qianlong Edict also took Fan Rulin's wrongdoing as the right thing to do; at the end of the Qing Dynasty, Tan Sitong also took Xun Xue as the study of "hometown wishes". Because of the portal view of Xun Zihou's learning, the Song Ming Confucians who preferred Mengxue rejected Xun Xue with the view of the portal, resulting in an excessive emphasis on the study of the inner saints, but in fact, they had already sown the seeds of the late Ming Confucians who "have nothing to do and talk about their hearts, and repay the king when they are dying". Foolishly, it is foolish to think that the inner saint and the outer king, like the two legs of man and the two wings of a bird, are indispensable, and if one is wasted, it is not feasible to abolish. Isn't it ironic that the Later Xunzi scholars and the Song Ming Confucians, who admired Mengxue, rejected each other's doctrines with the view of the portal, and Confucianism was thus abandoned for a thousand years? Behind this farce, nothing hurt the most was Xunzi himself: Zhu Confucian used it not as a basis for Xunzi, not by Xunzi himself, nor by Xunzi's own intentions; not by his own fault, but by the prejudice of Zhuru (Xun, Menghou and their admirers) and the ignorance of scholars, so that his learning was not passed on, and his name was destroyed. Not a sad man! Therefore, the portal bias can be stopped! For the study of foreign kings, we still have many valuable things to explore and explore. I hope that this article can slightly clarify the historical misunderstanding of Xun Xue' accumulation and open up a new horizon for Xun Meng's research.
exegesis:
For example, Mr. Lu Jianhua and Mr. Li Zonggui both hold this view. See Mr. Lu Jianhua's doctoral dissertation: "Xunzi Etiquette Research". For this reason, see Chen Lai's article: "Treatise on the Bamboo Manuscript by Zi Si and Mencius: On the Historical Significance of the Excavation of Guodian Chujian" and Peng Hao's Paper: "The Age of Guodian No. 1 Tomb and Related Problems", in Chen Fubin," in Chen Fubin, ed., "Collected Papers on Excavated Thought in this Century and Research Papers on Classical Chinese Philosophy," Taipei, Fu Jen University Press, 1999, p. 357.
Wang Xianqian's "Collection of Interpretations" is as it is, and Lu Wenbi and Hao Yixing use Song Ben as a basis for advocating changing it to "However". However, it has little to do with this article and is not recognized here.
At the end of the Warring States period, the Confucian sects did have the behavior of competing for orthodoxy, which can be seen by the fact that the "Han Feizi Xianxue" said that the various schools "choose the opposite and different, and all claim to be true holes", and at the end of the "Non-Twelve Sons" there is Xunzi's remark that depreciates the three confucian schools, which can be used as an example. Mr. Jin Qizhen also holds a similar view in "A Brief Discussion on the Confucianism of the Ziyou Clan".
Most of the versions that are visible today, especially those handed down from ancient times, are "Ziyou", and only a very few and mainly the versions compiled by the present generation write this place as "ZiGong". For details, you can refer to the relevant discussion in Zan Runjiao's master's degree thesis "Xunzi Research".
The author of this article has contacted Mr. Zhou by email, and he frankly admits that the version he quoted is unreliable and advocates that it is more reasonable to use the traditional "sub-game".
The Analects of Yang Goods records that Confucius appreciated Ziyou's practice of teaching the people of Huawucheng with ritual music and strings.
From this, we can even boldly deduce that because the positions of the Xunzi school and the Ziyou school are similar, it is possible that the Ziyou school fell into the Xunzi sect after the decline of its division, thus bringing with it a chapter that depreciated the Si Meng school, continuing after the "non-ten sons". This inference lacks basis, but in the context of the great changes in the field of thought and the confluence of Confucianism at the time of the Qin and Han Dynasties, the possibility of this happening is not ruled out.
bibliography:
Ji Yun, et al. Siku Quanshu General Catalogue [G]// Wenyuange Siku Quanshu (Electronic Edition). Shanghai:People's Publishing House,1999.]
Hao Jing. Hao Shi continued the Book of the Later Han Dynasty [G]// Wenyuange Siku Quanshu (electronic version). Shanghai:People's Publishing House,1999.]
Sun Qian,Sun Wei. On Xunzi's "Non-Twelve Sons"[J]. Journal of Longyan University,2008(2):24.]
Yang Xiong. Yangzi Fa Yan [G]// Wenyuange Siku Quanshu (electronic version). Shanghai:People's Publishing House,1999.]
WANG Yinglin. Sleepy Chronicle [G]//Wenyuange Siku Complete Book (electronic version). Shanghai:People's Publishing House,1999.]
Zhou Chicheng. The Non-Zi Si and Meng Chuan of the Non-Twelve Sons are from the Xunzi HouXue Examination[J]. Journal of Sinology, 2014(3):63-66.
[7] Han Bao. Han Shi Wai Biography [G]// Wenyuange Siku Quanshu (electronic version). Shanghai:People's Publishing House,1999.]
Wang Xianqian. Xun subset solution[M]. Beijing:Zhonghua Bookstore,1988.]
Gao Heng. Gao Heng's Works (Volume 6)[M]. Beijing:Tsinghua University Press,2004.]
Liao Mingchun. Chronology of the writing of "Xunzi"[J]. Journal of Social Sciences, Jilin University,1994(6):52.]
Jin Qizhen. A Brief Discussion on the "Confucianism of the Ziyou Clan"[J]. Journal of Jiangnan University (Humanities and Social Sciences Edition), 2009(6):66-67.]
Zan Runjiao. Xun Zi's "Non-Twelve Sons"[D]. Master's Thesis, Yantai University, 2009.
![Li Yuntian: It is not appropriate to change the career in this life year[fig]]()