For the *most part of the Chinese intellectual history, Xunzi have been broadly recognized as one of the most influential pre-Qin Confucian philosopher, whose works have been rather consistently considered foundational if not canonical by *most Confucian scholars.【1】 Of course the two asterisked *most's imply there have been many vicissitudes when it comes to Xunzi's popularity and critical reception at various historical moments, especially when compared with his counterpart Menzi. It is however definitely over-reaching to assume that Xunzi was "widely regarded as heretical," unless we hold the bar for "heretical" Confucianism as everything other than Confucius and Mencius.

While few could dispute the importance of Xunzi's philosophy within Chinese intellectual history, considering its impact on the development of legalism and more generally the post-classical Chinese imperial governance system itself, his popular reception (among the literati class) is a far more complicated story. Some of these complications arise from the disciplinary area of Xunzi's writings. Mengzi is best remembered for his ren xue or "virtue study," whose moral philosophy forms the popular "face" of Confucianism to this day (especially outside of China). Whereas Xunzi's most well known writings tend to revolve around li xue (lit. "ritual studies), which is a Confucian disciplinary category encompasses the study of political philosophy, governance techniques and social norms. (Note that it would be anachronistic to label Xunzi's philosophy as legalism.) An unintended consequence of this disciplinary difference is that Xunzi's philosophy had a tendency to become politicized, often praised or panned depending on the political priorities of the ruling court and literati class of the moment.【2】It is important to keep in mind of an important rhetorical dynamic within post-classical Confucian intellectual history: while it is true that Confucian scholars generally favored highly centralized imperial governance framework rather than shared governance with local authorities, reflected in the classic principle of 溥天之下莫非王土 率土之濱莫非王臣。("All land under the vast Heaven belongs to no one but the Throne; all people within the ocean-bound land are subjects to no one but the Throne"),【3】questions on how big the central authority ought to be, how much “hands-on” authority should it exercise are still very much up to debate. In other words, the “big government versus small government” debate in the context of centralized imperial governance has been a major point of political debate among the literati class throughout imperial Chinese history. As Xunzi’s political philosophy is commonly interpreted as more in favor of large, high-expenditure, mass-mobilizing, expansionist type of “big” imperial authority, predictably we tend to see his works receive more official promotion during periods of similar political climate. Whereas during times of fiscal austerity and contraction of imperial authority, the opposite would happen. This is a very broad and general description of an high-altitude pattern of course, and plenty of exceptions do apply. But with Confucian literatis being a central and integral part of the ruling class throughout imperial Chinese history partially explains why such a pattern would form in the first place.

When tracing the reception of Xunzi's works within the long and complex intellectual history of Confucianism in China, we could identify four moments of major shifts and turns: [1] the early popularization of Xunzi's philosophy throughout Han and early Tang periods; [2] the "mid-decline" of Xunzi's popularity in late Tang and Song periods; [3] the modern criticism of Xunzi thought among late-Qing reformist scholars; and lastly [4] the "bi-polarization" of Xunzi within contemporary (post-1949) Chinese scholarship. I will focus on [1] and [2] in this post, which deals with the evolving attitude towards Xunzi’s philosophy throughout imperial Chinese history.

Starting from the reign of Emperor Wu of Han (157BC - 87BC), with the official promotion of Confucianism as the de-facto state philosophy and civic religion, both Menzi and Xunzi's works were promoted as the most important Confucian texts second only to those works directly attributed to Confucius himself. Sima Qian dedicated three volumes of his Shi Ji on the biographies of pre-Qin Confucian philosophers: one volume on Confucius himself, another on the most notable early disciples of Confucius, and then a separate third volume on just the biographies of Mengzi and Xunzi.【4】 Sima Qian considered Xunzi to be the most prominent philosopher of the late Warring States period, whose famous disciples include Li Si, the First Imperial Chancellor of Qin and the chief architect of the Qin imperial governance system.【5】Some writers from early Han dynasty, especially during the reign of Emperor Wu even regarded Xunzi’s brand of Confucian thought to be superior to that of Mengzi. Han polymath and statesman Huan Kuan, in his Discourse on Salt and Iron spoke highly of Xunzi, and credited Xunzi as the most influential thinker in shaping Han imperial institutions.【6】 Until mid to late Tang dynasty, scholarly writings generally portrayed Xunzi and Mengzi as two greatest classical Confucian philosophers, whose works are of equal importance but in different disciplinary areas. A clear hierarchical differentiation between Xunzi and Mengzi first appeared around the late Tang dynasty with the emergence of Neo-Confucianism. Most notably, in the works of Han Yu (768 - 824), a founding figure of Neo-Confucian thought, Han Yu singled out Menzi as the only direct heir of intellectual legacy Confucius (自孔子沒，群弟子莫不有書，獨孟軻氏之傳得其宗), and further proclaimed that the disciplinary purity of all Confucian writings shall be measured according to their conformity to the works of Confucius and Mengzi. On the other hand Han Yu described Xunzi’s works as “of great scholarly importance but suffers from minor moral shortcomings (大醇而小疵),” did not consider Xunzi a proper Confucian scholar in substance.【7】

Many Song dynasty Neo-Confucian philosophers echoed Han Yu’s definition of Confucian orthodoxy. Cheng Gu and Zhu Xi, two of the most influential Neo-Confucian scholars in Song dynasty, both were highly critical of Xunzi’s wicked human-nature hypothesis (in contrast against Menzi’s “benevolent human-nature hypothesis,” and both frequently spoke of Xunzi as a Confucian in-name but Legalist in substance.【8】 It is important to remember that Zhu Xi and Gheng Gu’s critical remarks on Xunzi were made within the context of “Xunzi versus Mengzi” debate of the time, with regard to which one embodies the “purest” representation of Confucian thought. Losing the “greatest Confucian philosopher” title to Mengzi is a far cry from being declared “heretical.” Even at the nadir of his popular reception during the Song Dynasty, Xunzi was still regarded as a great pre-Qin thinker in his own right, and was still regularly honored in imperial ceremonies. A representative historical occasion demonstrating what “Xunzi being sidelined” really meant within the imperial Chinese context would be Song Emperor Shen Zong’s edict honoring Confucius issued in the second year of Xi Ning (1069 AD). In the imperial edict, Emperor Shen Zong stipulated that only the name plaques of Confucius and Mengzi shall be placed at the main altar of Confucian temples, whereas name plaques of Xunzi, Yang Xiong (Han dynasty Confucian philosopher) and Han Yu shall be placed in descending precedence on the rear altars inside the temple. In his edct Emperor Shen Zong also awarded Mengzi with the honorary posthumous title Zouguo Gong (“Duke of Zou”), the highest honorary rank for non-imperial family members, and awarded Xunzi with a slightly lower ranked posthumous honorary title Lanlin Bo (“Count of Lanlin”).【8】

Sources: 【1】佐藤將之,《參於天地之治: 荀子禮治政治思想的起源與構造》（2016）：1-24

【2】廖名春《荀子新解》（2012）

【3】司馬遷《史記·列傳: 孟子荀卿列傳》

【4】司馬遷《史記·秦始皇本紀》

【5】司馬遷《史記·李斯列傳》

【6】桓寬 《鹽鐵論 ·卷四》

【7】韩愈《韓昌黎全集》卷二十

【8】黃進興. 《荀子：孔廟從祀的缺席者 - 從理學到倫理學：清末民初道德意識的轉化》 2003: 314–339.