Divine Bestowal or Moral Guidance: The Interpretations of Tian You Qi Zhong 天誘其衷 and the Heaven–Human Relationship in Early Confucian Thought
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper undertakes an ambitious and largely successful examination of the phrase "tian you qi zhong" (天誘其衷) within the Zuozhuan and its subsequent interpretations, aiming to illuminate the evolving understanding of the Heaven-human relationship in early Confucian thought. The author's philological approach to the polysemous terms you (誘) and zhong (衷) is a strong point, and the integration of excavated manuscript evidence significantly enriches the discussion by offering a fresh perspective on the phrase's original meaning. The paper's tracing of Heaven's moralization from the Shang through the Zhou and into the Warring States period provides a valuable historical and philosophical backdrop.
However, the central argument regarding the "bestowal" versus "guidance" interpretations could be articulated with greater precision and maintained more consistently throughout the paper. While both perspectives are presented, the narrative occasionally oscillates between them without a clear, unifying thesis that fully explains the intellectual trajectory of this interpretive shift. For instance, after the compelling analysis of excavated texts which strongly suggests an older "bestowal" or "descending" meaning, the transition to the Han dynasty commentaries, which seemingly re-emphasize "guidance" or "awakening," could benefit from a more explicit discussion of the intellectual and socio-political forces that drove this reinterpretation. A deeper dive into the specific reasons for this hermeneutical evolution would strengthen the paper's overall coherence and argument.
Furthermore, while the sections dedicated to classical Confucian thinkers like Confucius, Mencius, and Xunzi, as well as the newly unearthed texts, are informative and well-researched, their direct relevance to the phrase "tian you qi zhong" (天誘其衷) could be more tightly woven into the discussion. At times, these sections read as a broader survey of the Heaven-human relationship in early China rather than a focused exploration of how these philosophies specifically engaged with or implicitly reinterpreted the meaning of "tian you qi zhong" (天誘其衷). For example, when discussing Mencius's concept of innate moral sprouts and Heaven's supportive role, a more explicit connection to how this directly informs or challenges the "guidance" interpretation of the phrase would enhance the paper's focus. Similarly, Xunzi's naturalistic stance, while clearly contrasting with the idea of divine moral prompting, could be more directly linked to how his philosophy would have necessitated a rejection or radical re-evaluation of "tian you qi zhong" (天誘其衷).
The readability of the paper could also be improved in certain areas. Some sentences are quite lengthy and complex, which can make it challenging for the reader to follow the intricate arguments. Breaking down these longer sentences and perhaps rephrasing some of the more dense philosophical explanations would enhance clarity. For example, the sentence spanning lines 150-153 could be restructured for better flow and comprehension. While the detailed philological analysis is crucial to the paper, integrating these granular details more smoothly into the broader philosophical discussion, perhaps by providing more concise summaries of their implications, would improve the overall narrative flow.
Finally, while the introduction clearly sets out the paper's objectives, the conclusion could offer a more robust and synthesized argument. Instead of merely reiterating the tension between the "bestowing" and "guiding" interpretations, the conclusion has an opportunity to delve deeper into the profound philosophical implications of this ongoing debate for the development of Confucian ethics. A more definitive concluding statement that interweaves the historical, philological, and philosophical threads into a cohesive and impactful synthesis would significantly elevate the paper's contribution to the field.
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions in the re-submitted files.
Comments 1: However, the central argument regarding the “bestowal” versus “guidance” interpretations could be articulated with greater precision and maintained more consistently throughout the paper. While both perspectives are presented, the narrative occasionally oscillates between them without a clear, unifying thesis that fully explains the intellectual trajectory of this interpretive shift. For instance, after the compelling analysis of excavated texts which strongly suggests an older “bestowal” or “descending” meaning, the transition to the Han dynasty commentaries, which seemingly re-emphasize “guidance” or “awakening,” could benefit from a more explicit discussion of the intellectual and socio-political forces that drove this reinterpretation. A deeper dive into the specific reasons for this hermeneutical evolution would strengthen the paper's overall coherence and argument.
Response 1: I would like to thank the reviewer for the insightful and constructive feedback regarding the articulation and consistency of the central argument regarding the “bestowal” versus “guidance” interpretations. I appreciate the observation that the previous version of Section 3 did not sufficiently address the intellectual and socio-political forces that that drove this shift of reinterpretation. In response to this valuable suggestion, I have made significant revisions to Section 3 in the revised manuscript. Specifically, I have reorganized the three original subsections into two more focused subsections for greater coherence and clarity. Meanwhile, at the beginning of the new Section 3.2, I have added a substantial new paragraph that directly addresses the intellectual and socio-political developments from the late Zhou to the Han dynasty. This addition aims to provide crucial context for understanding the hermeneutical shift from “bestowal” to “guidance” interpretations. I believe these revisions respond directly to the reviewer’s concern. Thank you again for this constructive criticism.
Comments 2: Furthermore, while the sections dedicated to classical Confucian thinkers like Confucius, Mencius, and Xunzi, as well as the newly unearthed texts, are informative and well-researched, their direct relevance to the phrase “tian you qi zhong” (天誘其衷) could be more tightly woven into the discussion. At times, these sections read as a broader survey of the Heaven-human relationship in early China rather than a focused exploration of how these philosophies specifically engaged with or implicitly reinterpreted the meaning of “tian you qi zhong” (天誘其衷). For example, when discussing Mencius's concept of innate moral sprouts and Heaven's supportive role, a more explicit connection to how this directly informs or challenges the “guidance” interpretation of the phrase would enhance the paper's focus. Similarly, Xunzi's naturalistic stance, while clearly contrasting with the idea of divine moral prompting, could be more directly linked to how his philosophy would have necessitated a rejection or radical re-evaluation of “tian you qi zhong” (天誘其衷).
Response 2: Thank you for your valuable suggestion on the section 4. I appreciate the point that, while the original discussion of classical Confucian thinkers and newly unearthed texts was informative, it at times broadened into a general survey of the Heaven-human relationship in early China. This occasionally diluted the direct engagement with the phrase “tian you qi zhong,” especially in relation to how specific philosophical positions informed or challenged the “guidance” interpretation. In response to these helpful suggestions, I have made targeted revisions to this section. I have streamlined the broader survey material to ensure a tighter focus on the textual and philosophical relevance to “tian you qi zhong.” More specifically, in the section 4.1 on Mencius and Xunzi, I have added new paragraphs that explicitly address how their respective theories—such as Mencius’s doctrine of innate moral sprouts and Xunzi’s naturalistic stance—directly inform, support, or challenge the “guidance” interpretation of the phrase. Additionally, in Section 4.2, which delves into newly unearthed manuscripts, I have substantially rewritten the opening and concluding paragraphs. These revisions emphasize how the excavated texts engage with the reading of “tian you qi zhong,” providing important intellectual context for its evolving understanding. These additions aim to clarify not only the philosophers’ positions but also how their thought either reinforces or necessitates a re-evaluation of “tian you qi zhong” in the interpretive context of early Chinese philosophy. I believe these revisions address the reviewer’s concerns by sharpening the analytical focus and by drawing more explicit connections between the philosophical content and the core theme of the paper. Thank you again for your thoughtful comments, which have played a crucial role in improving the clarity and precision of my argumentation.
Comments 3: The readability of the paper could also be improved in certain areas. Some sentences are quite lengthy and complex, which can make it challenging for the reader to follow the intricate arguments. Breaking down these longer sentences and perhaps rephrasing some of the more dense philosophical explanations would enhance clarity. For example, the sentence spanning lines 150-153 could be restructured for better flow and comprehension. While the detailed philological analysis is crucial to the paper, integrating these granular details more smoothly into the broader philosophical discussion, perhaps by providing more concise summaries of their implications, would improve the overall narrative flow.
Response 3: Thank you for your pertinent comments and suggestions. I appreciate your careful reading of the manuscript and your constructive feedback. I have endeavored to address your concerns regarding sentence length and complexity. I have worked through the text and revised many sentences that seemed too long or complicated. As you have suggested, the approach involved breaking these lengthy sentences into shorter ones that are easier to follow. I also took time to rephrase various sections throughout the manuscript to make the meaning clearer, including what you have mentioned. All changes are marked in red in the updated version. I agree with the point about the philological analysis. Following your suggestion, I have streamlined some parts and have simplified the analysis where possible. However, the article’s main argument depends on a detailed philological study of the prase “tian you qi zhong.” The philological analysis provides the foundation for this article. Therefore, I have retained certain essential explanations, as they are indispensable for a full understanding of the textual evidence supporting the arguments. I believe these changes now better balance the need for detailed evidence with a clear and flowing narrative. Furthermore, the connections between philology and philosophy will become more transparent for the reader.
Comments 4: Finally, while the introduction clearly sets out the paper's objectives, the conclusion could offer a more robust and synthesized argument. Instead of merely reiterating the tension between the “bestowing” and “guiding” interpretations, the conclusion has an opportunity to delve deeper into the profound philosophical implications of this ongoing debate for the development of Confucian ethics. A more definitive concluding statement that interweaves the historical, philological, and philosophical threads into a cohesive and impactful synthesis would significantly elevate the paper's contribution to the field.
Response 4: Thank you very much for your feedback regarding the Conclusion. In response, I undertook a substantial revision of the Conclusion to address the concerns. I moved beyond simply restating the dual readings of TYQZ. Instead, I aimed to weave together the paper’s historical narrative, philological findings, and philosophical analysis. The Conclusion now highlights how the evolution of the Heaven-human relationship shaped the development of Confucian ethics: earlier cosmic and religious beliefs were gradually reinterpreted into a model of self-cultivation, providing a unified and clear finale of the paper’s main threads. The revised Conclusion also points out that the tension between the “bestowing” and “guiding” interpretations not only reflects a historical transition but also inspired enduring philosophical questions about the source of morality, human autonomy, and the interface between external norms and internal cultivation. I assert that the interpretive history of TYQZ exemplifies how early Chinese thinkers negotiated the boundaries between cosmic sanction and personal responsibility, and how these inquiries continue to inform contemporary discussions on Confucian ethics. However, due to space limitations, this paper is not able to explore in detail the deeper philosophical meaning of this ongoing debate for the development of Confucian ethics. This is an important topic that can be explored and further expanded. I’ll definitely look into in future research. I truly appreciate you pointing out this valuable direction for further study.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper is fascinating. it is well structured and articulated, with a coherent thread along the paper. I have a few questions/suggestions that I was wondering about- is the word "virtue" a translation of de throughout the entire article, or is it a translation of different terms throughout the texts. perhaps the concept of virtue can be clarified further. Along the same line, I'm not sure if the terms "morals" and "ethics" are referring to the same thing as synonyms, as I view them as distinct terms. the two other remarks are about the translation of Tian as "heaven" while it is common that tian can mean "nature" in ancient sources. the second is about the translation or understanding of Xing性 as human nature--it isnt always clear that the meaning is not "life": 性自命出 can also mean "life comes from ming". However, these are just my personal questions. I nevertheless recommend to accept the paper as is.
Author Response
Comments 1: I was wondering about- is the word “virtue” a translation of de throughout the entire article, or is it a translation of different terms throughout the texts. perhaps the concept of virtue can be clarified further.
Response 1: Thank you for raising this important question regarding the translation of the term “virtue.” In the article, the word “virtue” serves as the usual translation for the Chinese term de 德. However, in early Chinese texts, the term de cannot be adequately captured by the modern English translation “virtue” as purely moral excellence. During the Western Zhou context, de had two important meanings—it described both how virtuous a ruler was and the special power that made his rule legitimate. Here, “virtue” points to the moral teachings that later Confucian thinkers made their focus. Still, de can also connote a broader spiritual or political efficacy that attracts Heaven’s favor and secures the Mandate of Heaven. Thus, while “virtue” serves as a workable translation, de meant much more in ancient Chinese thought. Nevertheless, many Anglophone studies of Confucian thought regularly employ “virtue” when discussing de, especially in relation to Confucius, Mencius, and their emphasis on cultivating moral character. Therefore, by using “virtue,” the paper aligns with existing scholarship. In passages dealing explicitly with moral or ethical frameworks (especially in early Confucian contexts), “virtue” captures the essence of what many early Chinese thinkers described. I appreciate your suggestion to clarify this point further. After the sentence “The Western Zhou rulers stressed that Heaven’s favor depended on virtue (de 德)” in section 2, I added a clarifying note explaining the concept of de. This additional explanation makes clear how “de” was understood in early Western Zhou sources and how it relates to the idea of “virtue,” highlighting both the similarities and differences between the two terms.
Comments 2: Along the same line, I'm not sure if the terms “morals” and “ethics” are referring to the same thing as synonyms, as I view them as distinct terms.
Response 2: Thank you for raising this question. As you point out, there is a meaningful distinction between the two terms. Morals are personal, rooted in individual values, whereas ethics are universal, governing decision-making and actions. Within the context of early Chinese thought, especially Confucianism, “moral” cultivation (for example, the emphasis on benevolence, righteousness, sincerity) focuses on an individual’s character development, urging the internalization of virtues that align with the cosmic or social order. Meanwhile, the broader theme of “ethics” in Confucian discourse might address how these virtues should be enacted in society—how, for instance, a ruler ethically governs or a community shapes its norms based on collective ideas of the good. Under some situations, people tend to use morals and ethics interchangeably. However, as you pointed out, for academic accuracy, it is important to distinguish between the two in certain contexts. Therefore, I have changed "ethical cultivation" to "moral cultivation" throughout the paper when referring to personal moral development, including in the title of Section 4. Generally speaking, the moral cultivation focuses on the transformation of the self, while ethical considerations are applied to questions of governance, cosmic harmony, and social order.
Comments 3: the two other remarks are about the translation of Tian as “heaven” while it is common that tian can mean “nature” in ancient sources.
Response 3: Thank you for this point. I am aware that tian in ancient Chinese texts can carry the meaning of “nature,” in addition to or instead of a theistic “Heaven.” I have tried to explain this in the manuscript. For instance, section 2 mentioned “… we also see indications of tian as a universal principle. Sometimes, references revolve around cosmic or natural order ...” In the footnote, I note that “During the development of various schools of thought in the pre-Qin period, the concept of tian presents a diverse, rich, profound, and esoteric range of meanings, including the physical sky, the entirety of nature, natural laws, spiritual essence, moral principles, metaphysical concepts, historical patterns, and even roles such as a judge that determines and a bearer that sustains.” The choice of “Heaven” in this paper is based on two main considerations. First, it is the conventional translation used in many English-language studies of early Confucian texts. Furthermore, the ancient texts cited in this paper, such as the Zuozhuan and Mencius, usually understand tian in moral or spiritual ways rather than the meaning of “nature.” However, as you correctly note, there are passages (especially in the Xunzi) where tian should be read more as a natural or cosmic order. I have tried to emphasize this point in the discussion of Xunzi’s view on Heaven-human relationship.
Comments 4: the second is about the translation or understanding of Xing性 as human nature--it isnt always clear that the meaning is not “life”: 性自命出 can also mean “life comes from ming”.
Response 4:
It is worth considering whether the text 性自命出 possibly indicates that “life comes from ming.” “Human nature” is the most common reading in the Confucian philosophical tradition, especially in discussions of Mencius (who sees it as innately oriented toward goodness) and Xunzi (for whom it is raw and in need of cultivation). I agree that, when used in cosmological or physiological writings, xing can indeed mean something close to “life.” Actually, 生 and 性 are cognate in ancient Chinese. However, as I know, the issue about 生 and 性 has been well discussed by Xu Fuguan 徐復觀 in his History of Chinese Human Nature (Pre-Qin) 中國人性史論·先秦篇 chapter one.
Overall, I appreciate your feedback because it shows how challenging it can be to translate important Chinese philosophical terms into English. These subtle differences in terms like de, xing, and tian, as you insightfully note, play a pivotal role in shaping how readers grasp early Chinese ideas about morality, ethics, and the cosmos.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper offers a rigorous analysis of the evolving interpretations of "tian you qi zhong 天誘其衷" in the Zuozhuan, tracing the shift in early Confucian thought from a theocentric to an ethical-humanistic understanding of the heaven-human relationship. The study effectively integrates philological analysis, comparative readings of transmitted and excavated texts (e.g., Guodian, Tsinghua bamboo slips), and historical contextualization to address the core dilemma: whether Heaven bestows moral qualities or merely awakens innate dispositions. The interdisciplinary approach, combining religious studies, philosophy, and ancient Chinese history, provides a nuanced exploration of how early Confucians transformed Heaven from a divine entity to an internal moral principle. While the argument is well-structured and supported by substantial textual evidence, there are opportunities to enhance theoretical depth and scholarly dialogue.
Specific Improvement Suggestions
- Deepen Cross-Scholarly Debates on Key Concepts (Theoretical Depth)
Relevant Paragraphs: Paragraphs 1-62 to 1-80 (discussion of Confucius, Mencius, and Xunzi’s views on heaven-human relations).
Suggestion: Expand the comparison between Mencius’ "innate moral sprouts" (siduan 四端) and Xunzi’s "naturalistic heaven" by explicitly contrasting their metaphysical foundations. For example, highlight how Mencius’ "heaven-endowed goodness" (1-71) contrasts with Xunzi’s emphasis on ritual (li 禮) as human-made constructs (1-74). Cite Mencius 6A1 and Xunzi 天論 directly to illustrate their divergent views on human nature and Heaven’s role.
- Strengthen the Evidentiary Weight of Excavated Manuscripts (Material Application)
Relevant Paragraphs: Paragraphs 1-45 to 1-52 (analysis of Tsinghua and Shangbo slips).
Suggestion: Clarify the universality of the interchangeability between "衷" and "中" in early texts. For instance, cite additional examples from the Guodian corpus (e.g., Xing Zi Ming Chu 性自命出) where "zhong 中" denotes both "center" and moral inclination (1-83). Also, address potential counterexamples from other bamboo texts where "衷" retains distinct connotations of "sincerity" (e.g., Liji 禮記).
- Enhance Transitional Logic Between Historical Periods (Structural Coherence)
Relevant Paragraphs: Paragraphs 1-25 to 1-31 (shift from Western Zhou to Spring and Autumn period).
Suggestion: Explicitly characterize the Zuozhuan as a transitional text by comparing contradictory passages—e.g., the theistic "tian you qi zhong" in Xi 28 (1-48) versus the humanistic "ji xiong you ren 吉凶由人" in Zhao 18 (1-25). Use Guo Haitao’s statistical data (1-140) on the declining frequency of heaven-human interactions in later Zuozhuan sections to underscore the intellectual shift toward human agency.
- Expand Engagement with Sinological Scholarship (Academic Dialogue)
Relevant Paragraphs: Paragraphs 1-150 (citation of Roger Ames on Confucius’ "personal Heaven").
Suggestion: Engage with critiques of Ames’ interpretation, such as Tu Weiming’s argument that Confucian Heaven is a "creative process" rather than a人格化 deity. Also, incorporate recent works by Sarah Allan or Edward Slingerland on the evolution of "ming 命" (destiny) to contextualize the paper’s findings within broader debates on early Chinese philosophy.
- Standardize Footnote Citations (Academic Rigor)
Relevant Paragraphs: Footnotes in paragraphs 1-130 ("Slingerland 1996"), 1-178 ("Karlgren 1972").
Suggestion: Add page numbers and specific arguments for key citations. For example:
- Slingerland (1996, pp. 572-575) distinguishes between "cosmic mandate" and "individual fate" in early Confucianism.
- Karlgren (1972, pp. 140-141) links "誘" to "導" through phonological evidence from Western Zhou bronze inscriptions.
The paper demonstrates strong scholarly rigor and original insights. With targeted enhancements to theoretical dialogue and structural transitions, it could achieve higher excellence. Recommended for publication with minor revisions.
Author Response
Comments 1: Deepen Cross-Scholarly Debates on Key Concepts (Theoretical Depth)
Relevant Paragraphs: Paragraphs 1-62 to 1-80 (discussion of Confucius, Mencius, and Xunzi’s views on heaven-human relations).
Suggestion: Expand the comparison between Mencius’ “innate moral sprouts” (siduan 四端) and Xunzi’s “naturalistic heaven” by explicitly contrasting their metaphysical foundations. For example, highlight how Mencius’ “heaven-endowed goodness” (1-71) contrasts with Xunzi’s emphasis on ritual (li 禮) as human-made constructs (1-74). Cite Mencius 6A1 and Xunzi 天論 directly to illustrate their divergent views on human nature and Heaven’s role.
Response 1: Thank you for suggesting that I examine more closely the fundamental theoretical differences between Mencius and Xunzi—specifically how they understood the metaphysical basis of human nature and the connection between Heaven and human beings. In response, I have added a paragraph to illustrate this contrast. It explains Mencius's view that humans are born with natural moral goodness from Heaven. I cited Mencius 6A1 as the reviewer suggested, usinge analogy that human nature is inclined toward goodness as water flows downward, and that moral sprouts require nurturing to flourish. In contrast, I also cited Xunzi’s Treatise on Heaven 天論, where he argues that “Heaven operates with constant regularity,” separating cosmic patterns from moral intent. In doing so, I explicitly contrasted their divergent views on human nature and Heaven’s role as requested by the reviewer.
Comments 2: Strengthen the Evidentiary Weight of Excavated Manuscripts (Material Application)
Relevant Paragraphs: Paragraphs 1-45 to 1-52 (analysis of Tsinghua and Shangbo slips).
Suggestion: Clarify the universality of the interchangeability between “衷” and “中” in early texts. For instance, cite additional examples from the Guodian corpus (e.g., Xing Zi Ming Chu 性自命出) where “zhong 中” denotes both “center” and moral inclination (1-83). Also, address potential counterexamples from other bamboo texts where “衷” retains distinct connotations of “sincerity” (e.g., Liji 禮記).
Response 2: Thank you for the reviewer’s valuable suggestion regarding the examples from excavated manuscripts and the interchangeability between 衷 and 中 in early texts. Since the two papers I cited—Ma Xiaoyue (2022) and Wu Kejing (2021)—have already provided a thorough analysis of the universality of the interchangeability between 衷 and 中, I did not provide further elaboration on this in the manuscript. However, I appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion and have clarified in the revised manuscript that my argument builds directly upon the evidence and conclusions presented in these recent studies.
Comments 3: Enhance Transitional Logic Between Historical Periods (Structural Coherence)
Relevant Paragraphs: Paragraphs 1-25 to 1-31 (shift from Western Zhou to Spring and Autumn period).
Suggestion: Explicitly characterize the Zuozhuan as a transitional text by comparing contradictory passages—e.g., the theistic "tian you qi zhong" in Xi 28 (1-48) versus the humanistic "ji xiong you ren 吉凶由人" in Zhao 18 (1-25). Use Guo Haitao’s statistical data (1-140) on the declining frequency of heaven-human interactions in later Zuozhuan sections to underscore the intellectual shift toward human agency.
Response 3: The expression “tian you qi zhong” (TYQZ) occurs in Zuozhuan at Xi 28, Cheng 13, Xiang 25, Ding 4, and Ai 16; “ji xiong you ren 吉凶由人” appears in Xi 16; and “tian dao yuan ren dao er 天道遠人道邇” is found in Zhao 18. In my view, the order in which these phrases occur does not offer strong support for a developing emphasis on human agency. Still, I appreciate the reviewer’s observation. It has offered me fruitful inspiration to explore more carefully the complex evolution of ideas in the Zuozhuan, and I will definitely apply this insight in my future work.
Comments 4: Expand Engagement with Sinological Scholarship (Academic Dialogue)
Relevant Paragraphs: Paragraphs 1-150 (citation of Roger Ames on Confucius’ "personal Heaven").
Suggestion: Engage with critiques of Ames’ interpretation, such as Tu Weiming’s argument that Confucian Heaven is a “creative process” rather than a人格化 deity. Also, incorporate recent works by Sarah Allan or Edward Slingerland on the evolution of “ming 命” (destiny) to contextualize the paper’s findings within broader debates on early Chinese philosophy.
Response 4: I appreciate your suggestion to engage more with Sinological scholarship and key debates in the field. In response, I have made several substantive additions to better reflect and address these aspects. First, as recommended, I have expanded footnote 16 to include Tu Wei-ming’s argument and critiques of Ames’ interpretation of Confucius’ “personal deity.” Thus, it shows the diversity of perspectives within Confucian studies and provides readers with a subtler understanding of why the notion of Heaven (tian) was a matter of debate in early Chinese thought. Second, following the reviewer’s suggestion, I have enriched my discussion of “ming 命” (destiny) and its conceptual evolution. Footnote 2 now pairs Edward Slingerland (1996) with the more recent research of Sarah Allan. Allan’s work traces the concept of “tianming 天命” back to its astronomical and cosmological origins in Shang and Zhou sources. I am grateful to the reviewer for drawing my attention to these important works and interpretive divergences, which have broaden the scope of the discussion. These additions help enrich the philosophical background of the argument.
Comments 5: Standardize Footnote Citations (Academic Rigor)
Relevant Paragraphs: Footnotes in paragraphs 1-130 (“Slingerland 1996”), 1-178 (“Karlgren 1972”).
Suggestion: Add page numbers and specific arguments for key citations. For example:
- Slingerland (1996, pp. 572-575) distinguishes between “cosmic mandate” and “individual fate” in early Confucianism.
- Karlgren (1972, pp. 140-141) links “誘” to “導” through phonological evidence from Western Zhou bronze inscriptions.
Response 5: Thank you for pointing out the inconsistencies in my footnote citations. I appreciate your attention to detail. It can enhance academic rigor by providing more specific references. I have carefully reviewed and searched within the manuscript. I have now added page numbers and clarified the specific arguments for key citations such as those in the footnote 2, 12, 16. By standardizing and adding detail to these citations, this article can offers better academic credibility and makes it much easier for readers to find original sources. I sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s careful review.
