"Nature" in the Teaching of Confucius

THE QUESTION whether human nature is originally good or bad is one that has agitated Confucian thought ever since time of Mencius and Hsiintze, who differed chiefly on this topic. Chu Hsi. who established Confucian orthodoxy in twelfth century, declared Hsiintze unorthodox on that count. If it can be established that declared himself definitely on this question, it will be possible to determine orthodoxy of these two Confucians without any difficulty. Some modern writers have believed that did thus commit himself. A reviewer of my treatise on Hsiintze, in which I followed general tradition of Chinese scholars in asserting that Confucius never mentioned problem of human nature; problem had not arisen ,1 states that himself said that Nature is good, quoting in substantiation Analects XVII, ii. More recently, Dr. Creel has found to have taught explicitly that all things, including human nature, are properly and naturally . . . good, and it was only by perversion that they became evil. 2 He consequently holds that Miencius was thoroly orthodox and that Hsiintze was the destroyer of principles of Confucius, for he utterly and explicitly denied and rejected heart and soul of Confucius's teaching. It may therefore be worth while to examine carefully primary sources for Confucius's philosophy to see what justification there may be for this view. Most of writers on ancient Chinese philosophy do not mention Confucius's attitude towards goodness or badness of human nature. Dr. Cheng, who has written an excellent monograph on subject,4 states that before time of human nature is