Study On Questioning Mencius In Song Dynasty

Questioning Mencius as a trend of academic study was included in the study of questioning Confucian classics in Song Dynasty (960—1279). Today, although it can be found in such research fields as ancient documents, philology, literature and history, the whole picture of it is far from clear and definite even if all relevant studies in the above fields are to be taken into account. To grasp the whole map of the study, a consensus should be reached that it was a branch of ancient studies on Confucian classics. Meanwhile in specific studies, to comprehend the term properly, the paper suggests to attach importance both on the analysis of various forms of questioning in this period and on the analysis of the philosopher and his masterpiece Mencius, as the professional term Questioning Mencius, no matter as a denotation or a connotation, has been updating. Ancient studies on Confucian classics are of hermeneutics nature, with questioning as a way of textual reception. As Song hermeneutists had different understanding about Confucian classics, studies on those classics in Song Dynasty were distinct from that from Han Dynasty (206B.C.-220A.D.) to Tang Dynasty (618-907). From pre-Qin Period (before221B.C.) to Tang Dynasty, Mencius was categorized into the category of Jing (ancient China categorized books into four categories, namely the category of Jing, Shi, Zi and Ji. The category of Jing mainly refers to Confucian classics), as scholars during the period held a liberal view about the definition of Confucian classics and the definition of commentaries on them. The remoter a period was, the more likely scholars were to consider those commentaries as Confucian classics. After that to Southern Song Dynasty (1127-1279), Mencius and its commentaries were categorized into the category of zi (covering books of philosophy and encyclopedia). While in Song Dynasty, as academic norms became more and more systematic and rigorous, less and less scholars tended to classify Mencius into zi or regarded it equal to its commentaries. Equating commentaries with Confucian classics and promoting Mencius into the category of Jing are of different importance in nature. With the advent of rigorous definition of Jing and commentary in Song Dynasty, the promoting of Mencius’s position has the following influence:firstly, it broadened the definition of Confucian classics shaped from Han Dynasty to Tang Dynasty; secondly, it voiced the need of Song study to interpret Confucian classics philosophically; thirdly, typical interpret models that came into existence before Song Dynasty lost their authority at this period; fourthly, typical interpret ways shaped from Han Dynasty to Tang Dynasty had been dismissed. Meanwhile, a system in which Confucian classics interrelate and corroborate one another emerged in Song Dynasty.From the perspective of genetics, questioning Mencius took a long time to develop itself from scattered studies to a rigorous academic trend. In pre-Qin period, scholars that questioned Mencius were mainly exponents of various schools of thought, followed by vassals and scholar-bureaucrats. Subjects of their questioning were Mencius himself and his theory. In that period the study driven by the pursuing of knowledge were of pure academic nature, the liveliness of which can never be repeated. However, ways of arguing and questioning were unpolished. During Han Dynasty and Tang Dynasty, with the development of society and academic norms, people who questioned Mencius expanded to include intellectuals, and the masterpiece Mencius was added as a subject of the questioning. Ways of arguing and questioning at this period were enriched, which can be seen in the commentaries of Jing and Shi (mainly historical records) in this period. After mid-Tang Dynasty, although the questioning of Mencius went silent, new ways of commenting and practical study models emerged, which helped pave way for questioning Mencius and questioning Confucian classics in Song Dynasty.Questioning Mencius in Song Dynasty was based on documents and records, in which there are many problems waiting to be identified and dealt with. Firstly, the questioning tended to be equivocal. Thus definitions of questioning and its counterpart approving should be reconsidered on the basis of ancient scholars’understanding of questioning. Secondly, what documents can provide with is far more than textual information. Since it is known that writings that raise questions and then wait for people’s answer often fail to fully reflect answerers’point of view, studying Cewen (an examination style in ancient china that included questions on politics and examinees’ answers) is a necessarily way to unveil the authority of Cewen as a form of document. Thirdly, as arguments of questioning Mencius in this period often contradicted with one another, it is necessary to identify these contradictions and study them. Last but not least, arguments held by scholars in this period weren’t exclusively based on documents, thus they tended to be subjective. The validity of them to some extend was merely true of individual scholars or of some certain scholar groups. To detect the validity of these arguments, analysis based on valid documents is suggested. Generally, Song scholars preferred Jing and Shi to Zi and Ji (books of literatures) regarding to their documentary importance. However, exceptions often emerged. The situation remains true when it comes to the ways of questioning Mencius. There was never a standard way for every scholar. Therefore, the paper concludes that questioning Mencius was prevailing but complex in this period.Basing on the analysis of documents collected, the paper concludes that questioning Mencius in Song Dynasty focused on the following issues:First, the masterpiece Mencius. The issue involves questions about the author and contents of the masterpiece. As for questions about the author, a consensus has been made that in academic study, some interpretation of ancient documents like Historical Records can be wrong. It is suggested in this paper that the possibility of Mencius authoring the book himself is as true as the one that the book was co-authored by Mencius and his disciples. As for questions of contents, in ancient texts, many remarks were claimed to be citations from Mencius yet they have never been included in today’s Mencius. According to ancient scholars’quoting practice, and considering the vague memory of them, the paper holds that such citations are of little study value. As for issue of false revision of the masterpiece, the paper holds that it is resulted from false understanding of the authoring and spreading of the masterpiece. When analyzing groundless questions and quotations, as well as the revision of the masterpiece, some Song scholars tended to make subjective conclusions or make questioning as criticism or appreciation. Such practice did enrich Song literature, yet it had done little good to the improvement of academic study.Second, life experience of Mencius. Song scholars’attitudes towards this issue were somehow similar. However, their study measures had many flaws. Striking ones are viewing diachronic factors from a synchronic perspective, and ignoring the changeable nature of human mind.Third, Confucian Orthodoxy Theories and Mencius’s position. The issue is one of the foci of questioning Mencius in Song Dynasty, with scholars taking various stances. Questioning and study on the issue still is weak, since the conduct was limited in the frame of Confucian Orthodoxy Theories, adding defective questioning measures. In fact, Confucian Orthodoxy Theories lacking an agreed standard is due to the subjectivity in scholarly research. Regarding to the position of Mencius, it has been promoted because of the existence of Mencius. But generally, as Mencius is commonly deemed inferior to The Analects of Confucius, the paper notes that Mencius’s position only goes between that of Yanhui (Confucius’s disciple) and Xunzi (a Confucianist).Fourth, Mencius’s thoughts. Mencius’s thoughts can be divided into three categories. Firstly, he hailed righteousness and monarchy ruling and disapproved selfishness and tyranny. Secondly, he endorsed the overthrow of Xia Dynasty and Shang Dynasty, and advocated people to reserve their respect they had have for the rulers of Zhou Dynasty. Thirdly, he held that man is good and honest in nature. These thoughts were core subjects of Song scholars’questioning, as well as the inconsistency and contradiction between remarks of Mencius and that of other philosophers as well as that in Jing documents. Regarding to the issue, detailed analysis has been made in the paper.From the perspective of hermeneutics, questioning Mencius in Song Dynasty is based on the interpretation of ancient documents. Connecting it with study of Confucian classics from Han Dynasty and Tang Dynasty, and comparing it with the development of western hermeneutics, the paper finds that the development of hermeneutics east and west have a lot in common. Besides, the in-depth and systematic probe into Mencius’s feelings and thoughts by Song scholars had surpassed prior studies and contributed a lot to the turn of academic focus in this period. Although ways of questioning and arguing have their demerits, questioning Mencius in this period has exerted great influence in China’s academic history.