Between “Jing 敬” and “Cheng 诚”: A Linguistic Study of the Internalization Process in the Pre-Qin Confucian Ethical System
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper not only examines the ideological evolution of “jing” and “cheng” in pre-Qin period philosophy, but also delves deeply into the ideological origins and historical traditions of “jing” in Mencius’ moral philosophy. It demonstrates the influence of “The Doctrine of Mean” and “The Great Learning” on Mencius’ thought, transforming the moral requirement based on external relationship into internal and personal moral cultivation as its ethical foundation. It is worth noting that in Confucius’ philosophy, was “jing” solely depicted as a cautious and serious attitude stemming from lower status towards higher ones? Or did he also emphasize inner moral cultivation? Ultimately, the development of the concepts “cheng” from “The Doctrine of Mean” and “The Great Learning” led Mencius develop this aspect?
Two additional details are presented in the second chapter “Attitudes Towards Others: "Jing" in The Analects ”,
(1) “Yan Pingzhong is skilled in interacting with others. The longer he interacts with people, the more respect he gains from them.” It seems that it didn’t imply that Yan Pingzhong gains respect because of hierarchical relationships; conversely, it would be more appropriate to take “jing” as an external requirement when someone is skilled at interacting with people.
(2) If “jing” hinges on hierarchical relations, particularly the inferior to the superior, then how should we think of King Wen’s serious and earnest attitude toward populace to prevent them from cursing and resenting him?
Comments on the Quality of English Language
grammar mistake:
(1) Page 1, original text: A notable phenomenon is the varying degrees of attention “Jing” and “Cheng” receive within the ideological frameworks of The Analects, “The Great Learning,” “The Doctrine of the Mean,” and “The Works of Mencius.”
Correction: A notable phenomenon is the varying degrees of attention “Jing” and “Cheng” received within the ideological frameworks of The Analects, “The Great Learning,” “The Doctrine of the Mean,” and “The Works of Mencius.”
(2) Page 3, original text: Confucius views the respect others show Yan Pingzhong as an evaluation tool recognizing him.
Correction: Confucius views the respect others show for Yan Pingzhong as an evaluation tool recognizing him.
Author Response
Comments 1: The paper not only examines the ideological evolution of “jing” and “cheng” in pre-Qin period philosophy, but also delves deeply into the ideological origins and historical traditions of “jing” in Mencius’ moral philosophy. It demonstrates the influence of “The Doctrine of Mean” and “The Great Learning” on Mencius’ thought, transforming the moral requirement based on external relationship into internal and personal moral cultivation as its ethical foundation. It is worth noting that in Confucius’ philosophy, was “jing” solely depicted as a cautious and serious attitude stemming from lower status towards higher ones? Or did he also emphasize inner moral cultivation? Ultimately, the development of the concepts “cheng” from “The Doctrine of Mean” and “The Great Learning” led Mencius develop this aspect?
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. "Jing" originated from vigilance towards the external world. In the early Zhou Dynasty, it began to be emphasized as a form of "virtue." Confucius prominently regarded it as an attitude towards others, especially those in higher positions. In Mencius's interpretation, "Jing" was, in a certain sense, transformed into "Cheng." It is important to note that at the end of the revised manuscript's fourth section, we pointed out that in the Xunzi, there are also similar cases where "Jing" is described as a form of internal self-cultivation. This indicates that the internalization of ethics might be a holistic trend.
Comments 2: （1）“Yan Pingzhong is skilled in interacting with others. The longer he interacts with people, the more respect he gains from them.” It seems that it didn’t imply that Yan Pingzhong gains respect because of hierarchical relationships; conversely, it would be more appropriate to take “jing” as an external requirement when someone is skilled at interacting with people.
Response 2: Agree. We have revised the original text based on your suggestions, using the expressions you proposed as they are more appropriate and do not affect the discussion in this section that "Jing" is an external requirement.
Comments 3: (2) If “jing” hinges on hierarchical relations, particularly the inferior to the superior, then how should we think of King Wen’s serious and earnest attitude toward populace to prevent them from cursing and resenting him?
Response 3:Thank you for pointing this out. From an etymological perspective, the concept of "Jing" originates from "vigilance," emphasizing external factors. Therefore, the serious attitude of the King Wen towards Heaven and the people was due to his vigilance against the downfall of the regime. In other words, the concept of "Jing" originated from a cautious attitude towards external elements. By the time of Confucius, this "Jing" was more often described as an attitude towards those of higher status. We have already explained this perspective in the second section of the revised manuscript.
Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language
Point 1:(1) Page 1, original text: A notable phenomenon is the varying degrees of attention “Jing” and “Cheng” receive within the ideological frameworks of The Analects, “The Great Learning,” “The Doctrine of the Mean,” and “The Works of Mencius.”
Correction: A notable phenomenon is the varying degrees of attention “Jing” and “Cheng” received within the ideological frameworks of The Analects, “The Great Learning,” “The Doctrine of the Mean,” and “The Works of Mencius.”
Response 1: Thank you for pointing out our errors. We have revised the sentence according to your guidance and highlighted the changes in red.
Point 2:(2) Page 3, original text: Confucius views the respect others show Yan Pingzhong as an evaluation tool recognizing him.
Correction: Confucius views the respect others show for Yan Pingzhong as an evaluation tool recognizing him.
Response 2: Thank you for pointing out our errors. We have revised the sentence according to your guidance and highlighted the changes in red.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis article tries to discuss the history of Pre-Confucianism focusing on two words Jing and Cheng from a linguistic perspective. This approch is interesting. The article is well-structured and the philosophical and philological analyses are clear. As far as these are concerned, this artical is high-qualified.
However, there are some suggestions for the author for consideration:
1. An idea may be expressed by different words. The two leading ideas in the thesis are "an attitude of external respect and adherence to ritual propriety" and "the true alignment between one’s internal attitudes and external actions". However, they are embodied not merely in Jing and Cheng. For instance, if we want to examine "the true alignment between one’s internal attitudes and external actions" in The Analects, we should not ignore Ren (benevolence, humanness).
2. The thesis declare to discuss the ethics in the pre-Qin period. If so, how can we ignore Xunzi?
3. A small suggestion: It would be better if the corresponding Chinese characters of Jing and Cheng, i.e., 敬 and 诚 appear in the first time since there are too many Chinese characters with same pronunciation.
Author Response
Comments 1: An idea may be expressed by different words. The two leading ideas in the thesis are "an attitude of external respect and adherence to ritual propriety" and "the true alignment between one’s internal attitudes and external actions". However, they are embodied not merely in Jing and Cheng. For instance, if we want to examine "the true alignment between one’s internal attitudes and external actions" in The Analects, we should not ignore Ren (benevolence, humanness).
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. Examining the differences in the interpretations of "Jing" by Confucius and Mencius reveals a shift from an attitude towards others to an attitude originating from within oneself. This does not mean that Confucius did not emphasize the cultivation of internal morality and the consistency between internal and external behavior. The core concept in Confucius’s ethical system, Ren is an inherently ethical requirement. This indicates that Confucius did value personal internal cultivation, but he did not use "Jing" to express this emphasis. In contrast, Mencius extended and generalized the internal moral requirements and the idea of consistency between the internal and external to the interpretation of "Jing." This shift is derived from the emphasis on "Cheng" in "The Great Learning" and "The Doctrine of the Mean," demonstrating the internalization of ethics from the time of Confucius to Mencius.We have already explained this perspective in the fourth section of the revised manuscript. Thank you again for your suggestion.
Comments 2: The thesis declare to discuss the ethics in the pre-Qin period. If so, how can we ignore Xunzi?
Response 2: Agree. This paper primarily uses the Four Books to illustrate a concentrated path of ethical internalization in Pre-Qin Confucianism. This change is also reflected in the "Xunzi." Although Xunzi’s understanding of human nature seems to be the opposite of Mencius, like in the "Mencius," the term "Jing" appears extensively in the "Xunzi" with 54 paragraphs mentioning "Jing" 95 times. Besides continuing the usage of "Jing" as an attitude towards others (e.g., "Li means to show respect to those of high esteem and to honor the elderly." in "Dalue《大略》"), there are also examples of internalized interpretation (e.g., "The benevolent must respect others" in "Chendao《臣道》"). This indicates that the internalization of "Jing" seems to be a common trend in Pre-Qin Confucian thought.We have provided additional clarification on this issue in the fifth section of the paper.
Comments 3: A small suggestion: It would be better if the corresponding Chinese characters of Jing and Cheng, i.e., 敬 and 诚 appear in the first time since there are too many Chinese characters with same pronunciation.
Response 3:Thank you for pointing this out. We have provided the Chinese characters for "Jing" (敬) and "Cheng" (诚) the first time they appear in the title, abstract, and main text.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsHello,
Most of the references of the Bibliography do not exist as such (except Wang Li's dictionary). Are these references translations from Chinese works? (for example, to my knowledge, Xu fuguan Book's has never be fully translated into English), if this is the case, the Chinese title of the work should be given.
Two methodological issues: 1) you should explain why you decide to adopt the Four books as a framework whereas you decide to focus on pre-qin? You have to make clearer your assumptions for the choice of this method and this corpus of texts. 2) you are only using internal correspondence between the Four Books, not external (contemporary texts of the Mencius for example, what do they say?). This is problematic when you claim to proceed to a semantic analysis. Wang Li's dictionnary is not enough to achieve that.
Another issue: where do the translations of the Classics come from ? the translation of terms should be challenged more than that. To translate 仁 by benevolence without a comment is problematic. Are the translations made by the author himself? Analects quotations need to be revised: or you rely on Ames, or Slingerland or DC Lau, or yourself, but you cannot just ignore the diffferent English versions used about the text. Besides, you need to rework your quotations: it is not necessary to have all the quotations both in English and Chinese, but we need the key terms to understand what is going on. In that sense, paragraphs 2,3,4 are too long. Your comments are interesting, but the people who is going to read you already know the classics. They need to understand better what are your assumptions and methodological approach, not to learn about the text itself. They already know it.
Your analysis of the Jing concept in paragraph 2 is interesting and you do make good comments, but you cannot just rely on Xu Fuguan for the context when articles like this one exist: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/13/10/989 or mention of Keith Knapp and Randall Nadeau works. In Chinese, Li Zehou （《中国（古代、近代、现代）思想史论》）or Chen Lai （《古代宗教与伦理─儒家思想的根源》，三联书店，1996） should be mentionned to contrast Xu Fuguan. You need more contextualization of the concepts and texts. If you want to use Meng Zuo as a foundation, it is perfectly ok, his works are good, but you need to be more explicit about the methodology and how you choose a text and establish it. There is not enough textual critique in your paper.
The same can be said about your third and four paragraph. Your comments on the text are interesting but they ignore the commentarial tradition and are too long. You need to go faster to the "semantic" point and just give what is necessary for a reader to get it.
Author Response
Comments 1: Most of the references of the Bibliography do not exist as such (except Wang Li's dictionary). Are these references translations from Chinese works? (for example, to my knowledge, Xu fuguan Book's has never be fully translated into English), if this is the case, the Chinese title of the work should be given.
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. In the revised manuscript, we have provided Chinese characters for the authors and titles of all references that were published in Chinese, including the newly added references.
Comments 2: Two methodological issues: 1) you should explain why you decide to adopt the Four books as a framework whereas you decide to focus on pre-qin? You have to make clearer your assumptions for the choice of this method and this corpus of texts. 2) you are only using internal correspondence between the Four Books, not external (contemporary texts of the Mencius for example, what do they say?). This is problematic when you claim to proceed to a semantic analysis. Wang Li's dictionnary is not enough to achieve that.
Response 2: Thank you for pointing out these two methodological issues.
Regarding the first issue, it is indeed true that the Pre-Qin period spans a long duration, and "Jing" and "Cheng" have specific manifestations in different texts from different times. Our study does not cover the entire Pre-Qin period. However, this article mainly focuses on analyzing the internalization process of Confucian ethics through case studies of "Jing" and "Cheng." Existing research has already explained the origins and trends of these related concepts; our study concentrates on how this ethical internalization was accomplished.This phenomenon suggests that the attention and interpretation of "Jing" and "Cheng" in different Pre-Qin Confucian texts have changed. However, research on this transitional phase is relatively scarce. Therefore, we propose that by analyzing "Jing" and "Cheng" using the Four Books as a corpus, one can clearly trace the internalization of Confucian ethics during the Pre-Qin period. Regarding this issue, we have provided an explanation in the reorganized first section.
Regarding the second issue, your critique is undoubtedly correct. Therefore, in the semantic analysis section of "Jing" and "Cheng," we have incorporated the semantic interpretations of related concepts from other linguists and historians of thought. This aims to more comprehensively explain the semantic characteristics of these concepts.
Comments 3: Another issue: where do the translations of the Classics come from ? the translation of terms should be challenged more than that. To translate 仁 by benevolence without a comment is problematic. Are the translations made by the author himself? Analects quotations need to be revised: or you rely on Ames, or Slingerland or DC Lau, or yourself, but you cannot just ignore the diffferent English versions used about the text. Besides, you need to rework your quotations: it is not necessary to have all the quotations both in English and Chinese, but we need the key terms to understand what is going on. In that sense, paragraphs 2,3,4 are too long. Your comments are interesting, but the people who is going to read you already know the classics. They need to understand better what are your assumptions and methodological approach, not to learn about the text itself. They already know it.
Response 3:Thank you very much for your suggestion. The original classic translations were done by myself, and indeed, I overlooked the issues of terminology consistency and accuracy.To ensure consistency in terminology translation, we have used the translations of the Four Books by the same author, James Legge(Confucianism: The Four Books and Five Classics — Collected Works of Confucius,Delphi Classics, 2016.ISBN: 978 1 78656 052 0). Although some may not consider these translations to be entirely mature, we believe this approach ensures the greatest consistency in term translation and does not affect the research results of this paper.We have added a note at the first citation and explained the issue of the quotation in the note.
Comments 4: Your analysis of the Jing concept in paragraph 2 is interesting and you do make good comments, but you cannot just rely on Xu Fuguan for the context when articles like this one exist: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/13/10/989 or mention of Keith Knapp and Randall Nadeau works. In Chinese, Li Zehou （《中国（古代、近代、现代）思想史论》）or Chen Lai （《古代宗教与伦理─儒家思想的根源》，三联书店，1996） should be mentionned to contrast Xu Fuguan. You need more contextualization of the concepts and texts. If you want to use Meng Zuo as a foundation, it is perfectly ok, his works are good, but you need to be more explicit about the methodology and how you choose a text and establish it. There is not enough textual critique in your paper.
Response 4:Thank you for pointing this out. n the original manuscript, the attention and response to existing research were indeed insufficient. In the revised manuscript, we have rewritten the first section to incorporate existing research findings and explain the research objectives of this paper based on these studies. In the subsequent sections discussing the concepts of "Jing" and "Cheng," we have also added necessary responses to existing research.
Regarding the contextualization of the concepts and texts and methodological issues, we have explained the research approach and objectives in the first section of the article. After adjusting the examples, we have attempted to add some semantic analysis. However, this paper does not focus on discussing the complete connotation of a single concept. The research emphasis is not on text analysis but on providing a clue to the internalization of Confucian ethics through the analysis of the meanings and interpretations of two key concepts in the Four Books.
Comments 5: The same can be said about your third and four paragraph. Your comments on the text are interesting but they ignore the commentarial tradition and are too long. You need to go faster to the "semantic" point and just give what is necessary for a reader to get it.
Response 5:Thank you for pointing that out. We have shortened the length of the manuscript by removing the Chinese original text of the quotations and reducing some of the citations without affecting the expression of the article, allowing us to move more quickly into the semantic analysis. Additionally, we have added more reference explanations for the semantic analysis. In the revised manuscript, we have focused on providing an overview of existing research in the first section and have incorporated more semantic analysis and references to studies of thought in the analysis of "Jing" and "Cheng."
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe new version is much better.
I believe you can still work on shortening it a little bit, especially part 3 & 4.
And of course, to use Legge as a reference for translations remains a problem.
you have a couple of typos to address l.242, l.305 (what the meaning of viz.?),...
