Those who do not fully understand the philosophy of Hsun Zi may think his idea of “modeling after latter kings” was proposed in contrast to Mencius' “modeling after former kings”. It was not the truth, however. Tzu Szu and Mencius had mentioned that people “did not follow the examples of former kings and were ignorant the principles of former kings. However, Hsun Zi argued that understanding the principles of former kings was much more important than “modeling after former kings”. Although Hsun Zi proposed the idea of “modeling after latter kings”, he actually placed more emphasis on former kings. In essence, both “former kings” and “latter kings” could act as the models of social rules as well as proper conduct. The reason to make such distinction was because the issues to cope with were different: the principles of the “former kings” needed to be adopted as dealing with the eternal truth, while the examples of the “latter kings” were followed as facing the occasions of the current rites and social rules. Although the Pre-Qin philosophers proclaimed they carried on the heritage from former kings, they did not emphasize etiquette and principles, which resulted in the popularity of Mohists' philosophy. Therefore, Hsun Zi r proposed the idea of modeling after “latter kings” in order to establish the principles of social rules, which not only complied with Confucius' idea of “obeying Kings of Chou”, but also adjusted etiquette and principles appropriate to changing circumstances. In conclusion, the idea of “modeling after latter kings” is compatible with that of “modeling after former kings” in Hsun Zi's philosophy. Furthermore, the reason for modeling the latter was actually to protect and accomplish the idea of the former.