This articlemay need to be rewritten to comply with Wikipedia'squality standards. Relevant discussion may be found on thetalk page.You can help. The talk page may contain suggestions.(November 2024)
Fajia (Chinese:法家;pinyin:fǎjiā), or the School offa (incl. law, method),[1] often translatedLegalism,[2] was abibliographicschool of primarilyWarring States period classical Chinese philosophy, incorporating more administrative works traditionally said to be rooted inHuang-LaoDaoism. Addressing practical governance challenges of the unstable feudal system,[3] their ideas 'contributed greatly to the formation of the Chinese empire' and bureaucracy,[4] advocating concepts including rule bylaw, sophisticated administrativetechnique, and ideas of state and sovereign power.[5] They are often interpreted alongrealist lines.[6][7] Though persisting, the Qin toTang were more characterized by the 'centralizing tendencies' of their traditions.[8]
The school incorporates the more legalistic ideas ofLi Kui andShang Yang, and more administrativeShen Buhai andShen Dao,[9] with Shen Buhai, Shen Dao, andHan Fei traditionally said bySima Qian to be rooted inHuang-Lao (Daoism).[3] Shen Dao may have been a significant early influence for Daoism and administration.[10] These earlier currents were synthesized in theHan Feizi,[11][12] including some of the earliest commentaries on the Daoist textDaodejing. The laterHan dynasty consideredGuan Zhong to be a forefather of the school, with theGuanzi added later. Later dynasties regardedXun Kuang as a teacher of Han Fei and Qin ChancellorLi Si, as attested by Sima Qian,[13] approvingly included during the 1970s along with figures likeZhang Binglin.[14]
With a lasting influence on Chinese law, Shang Yang's reforms transformed Qin from a peripheral power into a strongly centralized, militarily powerful kingdom, ultimately unifying China in 221 BCE. While Chinese administration cannot be traced to a single source, Shen Buhai's ideas significantly contributed to the meritocratic system later adopted by the Han dynasty. Sun Tzu's Art of War recalls the Han Feizi's concepts of power, technique,wu wei inaction, impartiality, punishment, and reward. With an impact beyond the Qin dynasty, despite a harsh reception in later times, succeeding emperors and reformers often recalled the templates set byHan Fei, Shen Buhai and Shang Yang, resurfacing as features of Chinese governance even as later dynasties officially embracedConfucianism.[15]
A late 19th century edition of theHanfeizi by Hongwen Book Company
Father to Han dynasty historianSima Qian,Sima Tan classifiedWarring States period philosophy according to six schools.[16] While Sima Qian was more influential for later views ofShang Yang, what is now theHan Feizi's chapter 43 ("Ding fa" 定法) likely seeded the idea of the fa school,[17] encouraging himself as synthesizer of his predecessors.[18]
Referring toShang Yang as a school focused on fa as including law,[19] Han Fei arguably referred to Shang Yang's current as a "Legalist" school at least indirectly.[20] Sima Tan coined a broader fa school,[21] which Han scholars included Han Fei's other predecessors under. The two would tend to become synonymous.[20]
As chancellors of neighboring states, doctrines associated with theQin state's Shang Yang, andHan state's Shen Buhai would have intersected beforeQin imperial unification.[22] Said to have been a privileged scion of the Han state, a real Han Fei would been well positioned to learn of them,[23] the Han Feizi is Shang Yang's first preserved reference outside Qin, with the Book of Lord Shang possibly going into broad circulation alongside theGuanzi in the late period.[24][25]
Referring toShang Yang andShen Buhai as schools, the chapter is least suggestive they could have had groups in the period.[26] with much of theBook of Lord Shang written by Shang Yang's followers, it may have had devoted disciples, identified byYuri Pines as at the level of an 'intellectual current' (xuepai 學派).[4] It would appear internal to Qin until late in the period.[24][25]
Employed as apolitical sociologist at theJixia Academy,[27]Shen Dao was at least evidently more broadly well known than Shang Yang or Shen Buhai earlier in the period,[28] in connection with the flourishing academy.[29] Criticized byXun Kuang as obsessed by fa,[30] Shen Dao is discussed in the Han Feizi's chapter 40 for his views onshi power,[31] depicted as akin to a dragon floating on clouds, much as he is depicted in theZhuangzi.[32]
Contrasting them as two different schools (jia), the Han Feizi's Chapter 43 took Shang Yang's school as focused on fa as including law, ordinances, decrees, reward and punishment,[33] differentiating Shen Buhai's fa under shu technique.[34] Discussed first,[35] following the Han Feizi,[36] Shang Yang, Shen Buhai and Han Fei were earlier often identified underShen Buhai's associated doctrine of "Xing-Ming" before the idea of categorical "schools" took hold,[37] including bySima Qian.[38] It would continue to serve as a secondary moniker for them.[4]
As for shu techniques, this is to bestow office on the basis of concrete responsibilities (xing "forms"), to demand performance on the basis of titles (ming "names"), to wield the lever of life and death, and to examine the capacities of the ministers. These are the things the ruler of men is to hold on to. HFZ 10-20. Harbsmeier 2024 or Chen 2000.[39][35]
Earlier chapters of the Han Feizi (14,42) consideredShang Yang a model reformer together withGuan Zhong andWu Qi;[40] Wu Qi's reforms were just not as successful as Shang Yang's.[41] Trying to demonstrate superiority over his predecessors, Han Feizi Ch.43 praisedShang Yang's merits, considering fa law necessary, but criticizes his current as a school narrowly focused on it. However, Shang Yang was as much a military reformer; Sima Qian attributes an "extraordinarily broad range of reforms" to him.[42]
When Gongsun Yang governed Qin, he established a system of mutual reporting and responsibility for performance;
As for fa law, it means that regulations and ordinances are recorded and displayed in the official archives,[43] that punishments and fines appear inevitable to the people’s minds, that rewards are in place for those who are cautious in regard to the laws, and that punishments are applied to those who offend against the ordinances. This is what the ministers take as their guiding authority.
Gradually combining Shang Yang and Shen Buhai,[44] withShen Dao fading in influence,[45] and understanding of Shen Buhai in decline, perception of their figures narrows toward a combined penal association with Shang Yang and Han Fei over the Han dynasty.[46] Finally, they are blamed together for the fall of theQin dynasty.[47]
Those the Confucian archivists grouped under the broader fa school probably never formed self-aware, organized schools to the extent of the Confucians orMohists,[48] did not reach their level of visibility,[49] and were not entirely separate from their contemporaries.[50] Likely only meaning "law-abiding families" (jia) inMencius's time, or "economist" in the lateGuanzi,[51] it is unlikely anyone politically identified themselves as a fa school,[52] and were not listed under it together until afterSima Tan named it a school in theHan dynastyRecords of the Grand Historian.[53]
Situated in the then-remote mountainous west, the earlyQin were a minor state untilShang Yang’s reforms propelled it to power in the earlyWarring States period,[54] arguably becoming the "most famous and influential statesman" from the period.[55] He was most successful and influential as an officeholder contributing to the founding of Imperial China, not a philosopher who generated a school of disciples.[56] The late compilers of theZhuangzi were familiar withShen Dao, but probably not a Legalist school.[57]Xun Kuang demonstrates familiarity with Shen Buhai and Shen Dao, but doesn't seem to know about Shang Yang.[58]
While Qin's ascent does increase brief discussion of Qin in most texts, such a later major figure asMencius remained largely indifferent toward it. It was not considered culturally different until the late period. With late Warring States opinion of the Qin declining to be considered barbarian, the period's major texts produced little about it, despite an increasing interest due to its conquests.[59][60] Some of Shang Yang's policies continued until later in the Han dynasty,[4] but by the late Warring States period, theLushi Chunqiu's own internal opinion of him had already declined,[61] and Qin law diverged significantly from the philosophies of works later defined as Legalist.[62]
Rather than representing particular partisans of fa law and method, arguably,Shang Yang,Shen Buhai andHan Fei are more interested in fa because they were from their ruling class.[63][64] Said to have been a scion of the Han state, the Han Feizi depicts Han Fei as an outsider "blocked by malevolent political heavyweights."[65] Han Fei blames his predecessor Shen Buhai as failing to reform the law, but Shen Buhai still issued new law.[66] Contrary Han Fei,Sima Qian arguesHan was still well governed, emphasizing his successful defense of the small state.[67]
Though there is not enough information on the Warring States, their development was not that dissimilar to Qin, particularly in terms of economic centralizing tendencies.[60] While theXunzi andHan Feizi are more technically advanced as lateWarring States period texts, ChancellorShen Buhai was not; just more focused on bureaucracy.[68] Neither was Shen Dao more technically advanced.[69] Qin was mainly unique in the degree of its reform, registering and mobilizing all male adults, and setting Qin on a path to dominance. It wasn't fully differentiated from other "feudal" states until the late Warring States reform of Fan Sui, which centralized power in the throne and adopted a more brutal military policy.[70]
Fa as including laws are not the exclusive domain of the fa school,[71] and Shang Yang and Han Fei's goal of addressing social chaos is comparable to other major figures of the era,Confucius,Laozi,Mozi,Zhuang Zhou,Mencius, andXun Kuang.[72] While Shang Yang was more radical and successful, agriculture and conscription concerned most thinkers of the Warring States period, with different solutions.[73] Contemporary toShen Dao, the ConfucianMencius also considered fa necessary, at least in the (early) sense of measurement,[74][75] instead arguing that a benevolent ruler would attract dedicated soldiers.[76]
Referring to exemplars, with law as a kind, fa was not an independent general principle in the early period. At "the center of the classical discourse", earlyMohist thinkers considered fa an "aid in following theDao". Ancient Chinese thinkers generally argued that they, their ideal society or ruler follows the Dao.[77] Han Fei would never assent that he was simply a Legalist.[78] Han Fei as presented in the Han Feizi would have insisted that his ruler follows the Way of the Ruler (Ch.5).[79][80] The Book of Lord Shang instead opens by arguing the necessity of changing with the times.[81] WhileSima Qian does not see Shang Yang as a Daoist,[82]Sima Tan sees "changing with the times" as (at least later becoming) an argument about the Dao.[83]
Including chapters like "Way of the Ruler" (Ch5), Han Fei presents the various techniques of fa as tools of the ruler's power.[84][85][86] As "the unifying thread ofWarring States period political thought",[87] his ideology is arguably monarchist, a position shared by all of his contemporaries,[88] holding in common the necessity of the ruler as a figure who changed laws to fit the times.[89] While the Book of Lord Shang is more focused on the state, Shang Yang as a figure follows this historical pattern, and the first chapter of the Book opens centering around the monarch, holding that it was only possible to overcome more conservative court aristocracy with his support.[90]
Although noting similarities to rule of law, Chinese scholarship dating back toLiang Qichao considered Han Fei as relying on a combination of both fa as including law, and what they termed "rule by man", including ideas of "techniques of rule" and "positional power". As long as the ruler has the power to abolish laws, "the ideal of the 'rule of fa'" is "ultimately reduced" to a person, or what modern Chinese scholarship explains as "a reflection of the unshakable monarchic form of traditional Chinese government." The contradiction between a rule of monarch and law is not a contradiction of logic, but of contemporary politic.[91]
Yuri Pines opposes a view of Han Fei as simply an advocate of “monarchic despotism”; recallingA.C. Graham's (1989) Legalist interpretation,[92] he questioned whether Han Fei might be an insincere monarchist, advocating fa law and method at the incompetent ruler's expense.[93] With hesitation, Pines (2024) eventually concluded Han Fei is an unwavering monarchist, institutionally, even if he ultimately has low expectations of the average monarch. Intelligent average monarchs will restrain themselves and rely on the system.[94] It is "unthinkable" to abolish monarchism itself, even supposing it might benefit the state; Han Fei instead hopes that intellectuals will show respect to a mediocre monarch and rule in his stead,[95] with "men of service of law and techniques" serving as a model for him.[96]
Book of Han or Hanshu, carved in the Ming dynasty, in Tian Yi Chamber Library collection
Included in the last chapter of theShijiRecords of the Grand Historian, earlyHan dynasty historiographerSima Tan (165–110 BCE) coined Fajia or "fa school" in a manifesto discussing approaches to governance, arguing for "Daojia", or a syncretic political "Daoism", as supposedly adopting the best elements of six schools of thought.[97]
Making no use of the schools, it is questionable whetherSima Qian intended Fajia describe all thinkers later associated with it, simply givingShang Yang his own chapter.[98] The Shiji listsShen Dao amongst theJixia Academy alongsideXun Kuang,[99] which Han Fei is also said to have attended.[100]
Legalism is not a precise (or necessarily accurate) translation of Fajia,[101] and as Tan used it, would not seem identical to a concept ofLegal positivism, or a "Legalism" of Shang Yang. The influence of the Han Feizi contributes to their synonymization.[102] Pertaining to office divisions,[4] Tan conceived Fajia as philosophically broader than law, likeShen Buhai.[103]
As Tan's schools are intended to include elements for his syncreticDao school to draw on, he couldn't be expected to write a fa-school exactly like Shang Yang, Han Fei or Qin, since he wouldn't consider all their elements politically useful.[104] Sima Qian's version of Shang Yang's background is instead introduced as an expert having studied Xing-Ming (form and name), used in the Han Feizi to distinguish offices.[105] Nothing in Shang Yang's current seems to bear out that he studied the same "names" doctrine as Shen Buhai and Han Fei.[106] He has a "names" doctrine, but it is different.[107]
Sima Tan praises Fajia for honoring rulers, and subordinating subjects, clearly distinguishing offices so that no one oversteps [his responsibilities]. He described the fa school (Fajia) as emphasizing fa administrative protocols that ignore kinship and social status, treating everyone equally and thereby elevating the ruler above humanity. Defining kindness as judging people differently (kinship and social status), Tan criticizes Fajia as strict with little kindness, as a temporary policy that could not last. (Therefore, Tan's fuller syncretic Dao school is superior).[108][4]
Han Confucian scholarLiu Xiang (77–6 BCE) used Fajia as a category of Masters Texts when he established the imperial library,[4] becoming a major category inHan dynasty catalogues, namely theHan state's ownBook of Han (Hanshu, 111ce) CH30.
Only official reclassified from Daoism in theSui dynasty, theGuanzi text named for the much earlierGuan Zhong is a late compilation.[114] The late pre-ImperialQin state'sLushi Chunqiu encyclopedia also included individual chapters on Shang Yang and Shen Buhai.[115][61]
Traditional ancient state Confucian bibliographic classifications arguably "do not pretend" to be precise, "imply strict separation" (from other classifications),[116] require they all have studied each-other's doctrines, or to have been an actual Warring States period school. At that time, it mainly took them to be related intellectually or by resemblances, in this case categorizing texts under fa[117] referenced by theHan Feizi.[118] Although Shen Buhai is said to have opposed punishment, he does resemble the Han Feizi more than any other text.[119]
Since the Qin knew aboutShen Buhai, he likely influenced the Qin dynasty, but would have had a moderating, administrative influence as compared with the earlierQin state reforms ofShang Yang.[120] Amongst broader arguments,Jia Yi (c.200–169 BCE) only blamed Shang Yang's doctrine for the faults of Qin under the fifthEmperor Wen of Han;[121] the early HanHuainanzi's discussion the Qin's fall revolves around its own Han dynasty political ploys,[122] and was probably outside their context to blame these figures.[123]
A pairing of Shen Buhai with Shang Yang in the Han Feizi contributes to a conflation of their figures, and subsequent fa school, with a harsh Shang Yangian penal Legalism,[124] and with theQin dynasty, taking its penal policy as derived of Shang Yang and the Han Feizi.[125]Dong Zhongshu (179–104 BCE) blames the three for a Qin Dynasty policy of failing to punish criminals;[126] recalling Shang Yang and Shen Buhai from the Han Feizi,Sima Qian's (c.145–c.86 BCE)Shiji blamesLi Si as manipulating theSecond Emperor, abusing Shen Buhai's doctrine and restoring the old harsh penal law of Shang Yang.[127]
Included in the Book of Han byBan Gu (AD 32–92),Liu Xin (c.46 BCE – 23 CE) adds that Fajia likely originated in an ancientZhou Dynasty department of prisons (or justice, inFeng Youlan's more positive reading) "make reward certain and punishment unavoidable, as a support to control by (Confucian) ceremony", reject teaching and benevolence, and concern for others, aiming to perfect government relying only on punishment and law, inflicting corporal punishment even on closest kin, and demeaning mercy and generosity.Feng Youlan's early scholarship considered this a legitimate attempt at history, but not an accurate one.[128]
AlthoughSima Tan described the 'fa school' as strict, he (and evidentlyLiu Xiang) "clearly" understood that standards (fa) were used in the administration, and not just harsh penal law earlier established byShang Yang (and later abolished).[129] They were not however all always earlier characterized as strict.[130] Later association with Tan's fa school shapes opinion of them.[131] TheHan Feizi advocates precisely defined, mechanically strict administration at the end of theWarring States period.[132] More closely resemblingHan dynasty level conceptual thinking, the Han Feizi's strict mechanical functioning is not evident earlier, including by Han Fei's predecessor Shen Buhai.[133]
Even if Shen Buhai made a tenfold effort to have Marquis Zhao utilize shu (techniques), treacherous ministers still would have distorted his words. Despite utilizing [the methods of] shu with the ruler, there was the trouble of no orderly fa amongst the officials. Han Feizi 43.2; Chen 2000: 959[134]
WhileShen Dao advocated that punishment and reward be proportionate rather than extreme,[135]Liu Xiang says that Shen Buhai aimed to eliminate punishment relying on supervisory technique (shu).[136] Contrasting him withShang Yang, while the Han Feizi likely understates Shen Buhai as compared withSima Qian,[137] it did not regard him as effective or apt a legal reformer, neither consolidating the laws, nor unifying the regulations and ordinances.[138]
Herrlee G. Creel emphatically insisted he was not a harsh penal Legalist.[71] He would have looked penal to people later interpreting him through the terminology of theXunzi and Han Feizi.[139] His given name literally means "does not harm" 申不害, an idea shared withShen Dao andLaozi.[140] Ranking him just below Laozi andZhuangzi,[141] though the "Daoist"Shiji blamesLi Si as abusing his doctrine, it regarded Shen Buhai himself as implementing theWay in his own time in defense of theHann state.[67] Though crediting Shang Yang's achievements, it does not have as high an opinion of him.[142]
In the eighth year, Shen Buhai was appointed prime-minister of Han. He rectified the state’s shu (technique) and implemented theWay. The country was well-governed within, and regional lords did not dare attack.[67] Shiji 45
Used in reference to Fajia or "School of fa",[143] it is not known where the term Legalism comes from.[144] TakingShang Yang as example,Joseph Needham (1954) used the term Legalism in reference to apositive law interpretation of fa, specifying such things as regulations for roads.[145] Although the term Legalism has still seen some conventional use in recent years, such as inAdventures in Chinese Realism, apart from itsanachronism, scholarship has avoided it for reasons dating back toHerrlee G. Creel's 1961Legalists or Administrators?.[21]
The Han Feizi presented Shang Yang as focused primarily on fa standards as including law, andShen Buhai fa (standards) in the administration, differentiating it as (administrative) technique (shu). Creel translated Shen Buhai's fa asmethod,[146][147] presenting him as perhaps the "first systematic theorist of organizational and managerial science", with a hierarchical, merit based appointment of ministers, and apart from the Han Feizi, a historical following opposing harsh penal law.[148]
Generally, the use offa (standards) in the administration does not automatically imply punishment.[149] Han Fei and Shen Dao make some use of fa (standards) akin to law, and some use of reward and punishment, but often use fa similarly to Shen Buhai: as an administrative technique. Shen Buhai uses fa (standards) to compare official's duties and performances, and the Han Feizi often emphasizes fa in this sense. With a particular quotation from the Han Feizi as example:[150]
An enlightened ruler employs fa (standards) to pick his men; he does not select them himself. He employs fa (method) to weigh their merit; he does not fathom it himself. Thus, ability cannot be obscured nor failure prettified. If those who are [falsely] glorified cannot advance, and likewise those who are maligned cannot be set back, then there will be clear distinctions between lord and subject, and order will be easily [attained]. Thus, the ruler can only use fa.[151]
From a modern viewpoint, Shen Buhai could be argued a Legalist inasmuch as his ruler follows guidelines.[148] Internally, Han Fei could consider this a victory for fa method.[152] They probably did not see it as literal Legalism.[153] Apart from contracts,[154] and what law Shen Buhai did make,[66] the guidelines Shen Buhai's ruler consulted (fa) were secret,[155] internal bureaucratic operations,[156] protecting him against the ministers.[157] Externally, the Han Feizi contrasts Shen Buhai andshu technique with Shang Yang's fa as including law,[158] and with law as clear and public.[159]
As for techniques of rule, they are hidden in the chest. It is that through which you match up all the various ends and from your secret place steer the ministers. Therefore, laws are best when they are clear, whereas techniques should not be seen. (Han Feizi 38.16; Chen2000: 922–923 ["Nan san" 難三])[160]
Fa method, or Shu technique as termed in the Han Feizi, help Shen Buhai and his ruler interpret information,[161] define qualifications and duties,[162] and make it more difficult for ministers to lie.[161] The Han Feizi advocates legal reform as facilitating standardized technical procedure in streamlining ministerial operations.[163] Although seeking more law, Han Fei comes from an environment of dangerous ministers seeking to reward and punish. Like Shen Buhai, this makes him more concerned with managing ministers than the people, and monopolization the key to power.[164]
The Han Feizi's choice toinclude law is not accidental, and is at least indirectly intended to benefit the people, insomuch as the state is benefited by way of order. It can (or has, by a law expert rather thanSinologist) be compared to a legislativerule of law inasmuch as it develops beyond purposes serving those of simply the ruler, operating separately from him once established. Han Fei says: "The enlightened ruler governs his officials; he does not govern the people." The ruler cannot jointly govern the people in a large state. Nor can his direct subordinates themselves do it. The ruler wields methods to control officials.[165]
Michael Loewe's 1986Cambridge History still considered fa law a first principle of theBook of Lord Shang, upholding state power. Relying more on group responsibility in the early period, Shang Yang's fa has both rewards and punishments. But Loewe considered Shang Yang's major aim a "unified, powerful state, based on an industrious peasantry and disciplined army", establishing a hierarchy of military ranks carried over into agriculture in the late period.[166] Agriculture and war may have been Shang Yang's "single most important slogan."[167] ThoughXun Kuang is probably accurate in considering Shen Dao to be focused on fa administrative standards,[168] his secondary subject of shi or "situational authority", of which he is spoken in Chapter 40 of theHan Feizi, is incorporated inThe Art of War.[169][170]
By the earlyWarring States period the kings had become more powerful, recruiting officials with an aim to advance universalcensus, taxes, agriculture, and finally universal military service as part ofmobilization efforts. The only surviving work of its kind, the Book of Lord Shang represents an extreme example of this early mobilization extending to the population. Shaping its overall policy, the Qin organized society on a military basis as familial, mutual responsibility groups of five and ten for military recruitment.[171]Sima Qian considered its reform the first of Shang Yang's accomplishments.[172]
Alongside standardized penal law, Shang Yang and Han Fei's (desired) ruler oversee colonization, taxes, the military, and for Han Fei, administration of the bureaucracy inherited fromShen Buhai, allowing accountable ministers to volunteer themselves to office on the basis of proposals. Considering them harmful to such ends, Han Fei opposes traditional privileges, demagoguery, tyranny, andcorvée.[173]Yuri Pines takes Shang Yang's "overarching commitment" to be a centralized, "rich state and powerful army", with an to aim "unify all under heaven" and establish the next dynasty. Rule by fa standards and penal punishments are secondary to victory.[174]
Prime ministersShen Buhai andZichan were both concerned with the recruitment of ministers and defense. A figure in theStratagems of the Warring States, although not the primary focus of his administrative treatise, Shen Buhai was both a diplomat and military reformer, at least for defense. Said to have maintained the security of his state, he was noted historically both for bureaucracy and making theHann state's military strong. Han Fei may criticize Shen Buhai compared with Shang Yang, but the Strategems and Sima Qian considered defense of the Han state a major consequences of, conversely, his foreign policy and administrative reforms.[175][176]
Loewe considered Shang Yang's economic and political reforms unprecedented, far more significant than his personal military achievements. But he was arguably as much a military reformer, possibly even standardizing the road network for military purposes, and did personally lead Qin to victory overWei. The Han also recognized him as a military strategist. A work attributed to him, possibly the same, is also listed under the Han Imperial Library's Military Books under Strategists.[177]
Pines takes theBook of Lord Shang's primary doctrine to be that of connecting people's inborn nature or dispositions (xing 性) with names (ming 名). With Shang Yang said to have reformed Qin law, theBook of Lord Shang does not believe that fa laws will be successful without "investigating the people's disposition." The work recommends enacting laws that allow people to "pursue the desire for a name", namely fame and high social status, or just wealth if acceptable. Ensuring that these "names" are connected with actual benefits, it was hoped that if people can pursue these, they will be less likely to commit crimes, and more likely to engage in hard work or fight in wars.[178]
With the rise of Confucianism, what Tan called the Dao school (Daojia "Daoism") was redefined as rejecting "ritual learning, and abandoning humanity and duty, saying that the employment of purity and vacuity alone can be used to rule."[179] Apart fromShang Yang (andLi Kui),[180] the Confucian division of texts into schools mainly sorts works that can be associated with a concept of syncretic political "Daoism" in theShiji, differing from Daoism as later understood.[181]
Sima Qian would likely have preferred no one be associated with Shang Yang,[180] as he did not like him.[142] He instead attested Shen Buhai, Shen Dao and Han Fei as "rooted" inHuang-Lao or "Yellow Emperor andLaozi (Daoism)".[182] Though favoring Laozi and Zhuangzi, Tan's "Dao school" bears more resemblance to what they described as Huang-Lao, synonymous with Daojia ("Daoism") in theShiji.[183] Daojia comes to meanLaozi-ZhuangziDaoism between around a hundred years after Sima Qian, and the third century A.D., when Zhuangzi philosophy was regaining popularity amidst political disintegration.[184]
Though considering Han Fei cruel,[141] Sima Qian discusses him and Shen Buhai alongside Laozi and Zhuangzi,[185] claiming them as originating indao ("the Way") andde (inner power, virtue), or "the meaning of"the Way and its virtue (Daodejing).[186] Sima Qian considered Laozi the most profound of them, but places Shen Buhai just below Laozi and the free-spiritedZhuangzi.[141]
The Way that Laozi esteemed was [based on] emptiness; thus, he reacted to changes through non-action. Hence the words of his book are profound and subtle and are difficult to comprehend. Zhuangzi was unfettered by the Way and virtue and set loose his discussions; yet his essentials also go back to spontaneity. Master Shen Buhai treated the lowly as lowly, applying to it the principle of "names and substance (Ming-shi 名實)." Master Han Fei drew on ink line, penetrated the nature of the matters, and was clear about right and wrong. But he was extremely cruel and had little compassion. All these ideas originated from the meaning of the Way and its virtue, but Laozi was the most profound of them. Shiji 63
As advocates of whatthey called Daoism, the Simas could expected to argue from its viewpoint, i.e. more for their own position.[53] But the Han Feizi's Chapter 5 also relates ideas from Shen Buhai and Laozi,[187] albeit as part of the Han Feizi's own critique.[188]
Later termed Daoist,A.C. Graham takes theZhuangzi as preferring a private life, while theDaodejing (Laozi) contains an art of rule.Xun Kuang does not perceive the two as belonging to one school in his time, listing them separately.[189] PlacingShen Dao beforeLaozi andZhuang Zhou in Chapter 33,[190] theZhuangzi does not associate Shen Dao with a literal Daoist or Legalist school, and he was probably not familiar with the idea.[191][192] If he preceded them, he may well have influenced them.[193]
Part of theYellow Emperor's Four Classics from the discovered Silk Texts
Along with foundingHan dynasty figures,[194]Sima Qian claimedShen Buhai,Han Fei andShen Dao as "rooted" inHuang-Lao or "Yellow Emperor andLaozi (Daoism)".[195] While the term might be retrospective, differentiating it as a "ruling fǎjiā ('Legalist') cult", Sinologist Hansen (Stanford Encyclopedia) still took something akin to a Huang-Lao "Yellow Emperor Daoism" as theoretically growing to dominance among the Chineseofficialdom by the Qin dynasty, recalling theMawangdui Silk Texts.[196] Representing more of a tendency than a unified doctrine, Huang-Lao administrators named bySima Qian likeCao Shen took a more "hands off" approach.[197] Though theHuangdi Sijing can be compared with theDaodejing or Han Feizi, it moreover bares more resemblance to theGuanzi.[198]
With Daoist or Legalist school distinctions not existing before theHan dynasty, those who includedLaozi commentaries in theHan Feizi, at least, probably did not see two separate schools; they probably saw works of rule.[199][200]Sima Qian andBan Gu describe Huang-Lao as works of rule.[201] While it is a question how much such content might have been extant in Shen Buhai's time,[202] the Sijing's Jingfa and Guanzi regard fa administrative standards as generated by theDao, theoretically placing them, and some of those the Confucians later called Legalists, within a "loosely Daoist" context focused on rule.[203]
While The Sijing has a more "naturalist" conception of the Way that might restrain the ruler,[204][205] Shen Buhai and Shen Dao were still also more naturalist, with Shen Dao moving away from an older naturalism towards a concept ofDao.[206][207] The Han Feizi and LaterMohists were moving away from the earlier naturalism of Shen Dao,[208][209] and Laozi.[210] WhileShen Dao and theHuangdi Sijing earlier still referred to a Way of Heaven, the Han Feizi more directly refers to a Way of the ruler.[211][212] The late Han Feizi,Guanzi and Sijing all have similar conceptions of principles and theWay as an art of rule, with the Han Feizi devoting three chapters to the subject.[213]
The Han Feizi'sLaozi commentaries could theoretically precede theXunzi,[214] while being late additions to the work itself, isolated to a few chapters. But it does make a "sustained effort" to integrate a Daoistic context. Roughly contemporary to theMawangdui silk texts andHuangdi Sijing, they would together theoretically indicate the kind of syncretism that was becoming dominant by the late Warring States toQin dynasty.[215] While the Han Feizi itself may not the most effective example of Daoisticsycnretism,[216] translator W.K. Liao considered the Han Feizi's Chapter 20 "Commentaries on Lao Tzŭ's Teachings" academically thorough.[217]
Some scholars argued a post-Han Fei dating for theMawangdui Silk Texts,[218] and can be argued to have been compiled in the early Han, when they would have still been appealing. But almost all scholars placed them Pre-han.[219]Michael Loewe placed itsJingfa text before Qin unification. TheYellow Emperor is a major figure in one of its texts. Amongst other strains of thought, the more metaphysical, but still politically orientedBoshu text has arguments more comparable tonatural law, but includes contents baring resemblance to Shen Buhai, Shen Dao and Han Fei, with some identical to Shen Dao.[220]
Taking Shen Dao as an early theoretical representative of what would later be termed "Daoism",[221] Hansen interpreted those works later termed legalist as works of rule.[222] Shen Dao has administrative ideas, but a follower of his theory of positional power has authority because they have power or charisma; not because they are an expert at legal language.[223] The Han Feizi presents administrative technique (shu) and fa (standards) to the ruler as tools for governing the state, with the administrative technique of Shen Buhai especially a tool in the ruler's hands.
Though not characterized as Huang-Lao, and only more focused on regulating ministers later in the work, the Han Feizi creditsShang Yang with developing standards as a general way of rule; not just criminal law. Its standards regulate ministers amongst other desired programs, most prominently including mobilizations for agriculture and war.[224][4] Despite a more general orientation aimed at enhancing state power, Duke Xiao had likely called for ministers like Shang Yang partly to strengthen his own personal rule against that of "unruly aristocrats" of the 'Qin ruling lineage', aiming to expand the elite by employing men of service at their expense.[225]
Traditionally taken as (Laozi) Daoist rooted viaSima Qian, some earlier modern Chinese scholars especially would take Sima Qian's account as factual, based on comparison. Unanimously accepted as Daoist-rooted in early scholarship,SinologistHerrlee G. Creel did not believe that Shen Buhai was a (Laozi) Daoist in his own time, questioning their chronology. Somewhat Confucianistic, Shen Buhai most resembles the Han Feizi, andmay have preceded theDaodejing. But if so, he does bear a "striking" resemblance to Laozi.[226]
Though scholar Pei Wang primarily treats the similarities and differences of Laozi, theHuangdi Sijing andHan Feizi, at least in review with Pei Wang,Yuri PinesDao Companion to China's fa tradition modernly expresses openness that that early thinkers like were "indebted" Shen Buhai to Laozi.[227] If he was, he is significantly more administrative, emphasizing "inactivity" as "holding the levers of power", while delegating routine managerial functions. He emphasizes the internal tranquility of the ruler, but advocates a system of tallies with reliable ministers as its aid.[228]
Zhuangzi typically refrains from actions more generally, but Laozi and Shen Buhai do share a similar idea ofwu-wei (non-action) in the sense of using it as a governmental technique.[229] 'Underlying' the management of ministers,[230]Shen Buhai and Han Fei have ideas of wu wei differing fromLaozi andZhuangzi, inasmuch as Chancellor Shen Buhai and his ruler only "demonstrate" non-action, rather than actually being inactive.[231]
Creel elaborated a similar relationship withConfucius, and Shen Buhai may well have been influenced by Confucius. Shen Buhai and Confucius both emphasize selecting able ministers, but Shen Buhai "drastically" revises the idea by vigilantly overseeing their performance. Not involving in details, or ministers' duties or functions, Shen Buhai's wu-wei "inactivity" benefits the ruler by allowing him to supervise the government in the first place.[232][229]
Shen Buhai's ruler does try to selectively reduce activity in the sense of relying on ministers and technique. A parable from theLushi Chunqiu encourages the ruler to rely on technique and ministers rather than use his own judgement for such affairs as livestock. If the ruler has to stoop to using his own judgement, reliance on his personal judgement will cause quarreling with the ministers.[115]
The contradictory distinction is more pronounced in parts of the Han Feizi, which express disbelief that the ruler can actually relax from his own regulatory functions, particularly the mechanical checking of ministerial performance. But the work does prominently try to get the ruler out of politics, leaving duties to ministers. If the ruler has an able minister like the one presenting the Han Feizi, perhaps he should occupy himself with paperwork.[231]
Ink on silk manuscript of theTao Te Ching – fromMawangdui (2nd century BCE)
More political than a typical reading of the Daodejing, rather than "using" the work for politics, the Han Feizi's authors may be reading from an older, more political version. An interpretation of the Daodejing as simply cynically political would be flawed. Still, together withqigong, it can be viewed as a manual for politics and military strategy. In contrast to its modern representation, the Mawangdui, and two of the three earlierGuodian Chu Slips, swap the two halves of the text, placing political commentaries, or "ruling the state", first. Although not necessarily its sole "original" version, the Han Feizi's political contemporaries likely read them in the same order.
Arguably lacking in metaphysics, associated content instead possesses mythologies. Nonetheless, in contrast to all prior Ways, the Daodejing emphasizes quietude and lack aswu wei. A central concept of what was later termedDaoism, together especially with the early Daodejing, Shen Buhai, Han Fei,Zhuangzi, and so-calledHuang-Lao Daoism all havewu wei as a governmental function, emphasizing the political usages and advantages of reduced activity as a method of control for survival, social stability, long life, and rule, refraining from action in-order to take advantage of favorable developments in affairs.[233] If the authors of the Han Feizi were not all sincere in theirLaoist beliefs, the work would still have served as a suitable critique of Confucianism and Mohism,[234] and for impartial laws and techniques as purportedly bolstering the authority of a less active (wu wei) ruler.[235]
TheDaodejing regards the Way as nameless, but the establishment "names" like titles as inevitable with the establishment of regulations, advising that they not be carried too far.[236] Cautioning against implementing too many laws, it has an idea which says that "Man models himself on Earth, Earth models itself on Heaven, Heaven models itself on the Way, and the Way models on what is so by itself", which may still have contributed to an idea that laws should follow an impartial Way (of Heaven), with the way "generating" laws.[237]
While not a direct example of Xing-Ming, the more general idea of a less active (wu wei) ruler can be compared with theDaodejing's passage 17.J. J. L. Duyvendak interpreted ihe passage as valuing people's words,[238] "arousing wide interest" but whichCreel took as "quite old in Chinese literature" as that of a form of Daoism "leaning heavily toward Legalism". Creel takes theWenzi as example, which draws on the Daodejing, Han Feizi andHuainanzi. The Laozi's 'enigmatic' passage does not directly mention rulers, but would seem to discuss the ruler as one who "does everything without acting".[239][240] In the Guodian and Mawangdui versions, the passage is combined with passage 18.[241]
In highest (antiquity) one did not even know there were rulers (or merely knew there were rulers)... If good faith (of the prince towards the people) is inadequate, good faith (of the people towards the ruler) will be wanting. Thoughtful were (the sage rulers), valuing their words! When the work was done and things ran smoothly, the people all said: "We have done it ourselves!".... When the great Way declines, there is "humanity and justice". When state and dynasty are plunged in disorder, there are "loyal ministers".(Duyvendak 17-18)[242]
Rather than words, some translators likeJohn Ching Hsiung Wu have a more general translation of valuing people's faith, in line with the prior sentence.[243]Shen Dao's "Understanding Loyalty" includes a "concern that a focus on loyalty arises only when things have already begun to go wrong."[244] While placing some value in public opinion, theBook of Lord Shang instead believed that people should trust the ruler's rewards and punishments. The Han Feizi opposes trusting ministers.[245] More in line with Confucianism and others parts of the Laozi,[246] trust was an important Daoistic (Huang-Lao) value in the early Han dynasty going into the era of Confucianism, in the time ofGongsun Hong.[247]
The Han Feizi's lateDaodejing commentaries are comparable with the Daoism of theGuanziNeiye,[248] and with its "Seven Standards" chapter, connecting the Way with patterns and principles.[249] It uses the Laozi more as a theme for methods of rule. Although the Han Feizi has Daoistic conceptions of objective viewpoints ("mystical states"), if its sources had them, it lacks a conclusive belief in universal moralities or natural laws,[250] sharing with Shang Yang and Shen Dao a view of man as self-interested.[251] Advocating against manipulation of the mechanisms of government, despite an advocacy of passive mindfulness, noninterference, and quiescence, the ability to prescribe and command is still built into the Han Feizi's Xing-ming administrative method.[252]
Although these early Daoist association do not include Shang Yang, the Shang Yangian figureSang Hongyang in the Han dynasty does also quoteLaozi.Chao Cuo may have been similarly influenced. But this would have been more part of a broader cultural context.[253] Many Confucian scholars were also influenced by theDaodejing.[254]
While Shen Buhai may still not entirely align with Laozi or Zhuangzi, he fits alongside the "Daoism" of theJixia Academy's era as a "practical political thinker".[255] As another alternative model of wu wei from the period, theHuangdi Sijing switches to an active posture at "the right moment".[256] Though emphasizing appearances, if Shen Buhai had been quoted from the Zhuangzi, he would have early been accepted as a kind of "Daoist" as the category came into formation, except by preferential Zhuangzi experts, overcoming the strong with a practice ofwu wei "inactivity" that Creel compared withJudo.[257]
The skillful ruler avails himself of an appearance of stupidity, establishes himself in insufficiency, places himself in timidity, and conceals himself in inaction. He hides his motives and conceals his tracks. He shows the world that he does not act. One who shows men that he has a surplus has his possessions taken from him by force, but to him who shows others that he has not enough, things are given. Therefore, those who are near feel affection for him, and the distant think longingly of him. The strong are cut down, those in danger are protected. The active are insecure, the quiet have poise. Ch’ün-shu Chih-yao (Qunshu Zhiyao) 36 (Shen Buhai,Wei Zheng)[258]
SchooSima Qian does characterize Shen Buhai and Han Fei as rooted in a (Huang)-Laozi ("Daoism"), and does recall them alongside Zhuangzi. Shen Buhai or Huang-Lao may emphasize ideas like fa or xing-ming more,[259] but such demarcations are a later Confucian concern.[260] Along with the Zhuangzi, theDaodejing arguably does hold a negative of view law;[261] but the Zhuangzi goes on to accept a place for administrative technique within government,[262] i.e. Xing-Ming.[263] Though more obvious for the early Han, something akin to what Sima Qian called "Huang-Lao Daoism" may well already have become more dominant in the late period.[264]
Sima Tan criticized fa where "strict or unkind" as he defined it,[265] but claimed theDao-school to incorporate the good or essential elements of all the schools.[266] This syncretism marks the late Warring States period, characterizing "Huang-Lao".[267] According with Laozi and Zhuangzi's idea of wu wei, at least by its own words, Sima Tan's Daoism primarily opposes Confucianism as exhausting the ruler.[268] It also stresses changing with the times, according with the Han Feizi and parts of the Zhuangzi. Sima Tan's ruler should "do what is appropriate to circumstances."[83]
The Way that Laozi esteemed was [based on] emptiness; thus, he reacted to changes through non-action.Shiji 63[141]
("Daoism") lets people act according to the movement of time, respond to change of things, establish customs and inspire things. Sima Tan[269]
Sinologist Hansen argued China's officialdom as becoming moreHuang-Lao "Daoistic", lacking inZhuangzi influences in the late period.[196] While the Confucians classify theLushi Chunqiu asZajia ("Syncretist") rather thanDaojia ("Daoist") orFajia ("Legalist"), in the terms of older older scholarship, it contains a "Daoist-Legalist" fusion comparable toShen Buhai,Shen Dao,Han Fei,Guanzi and theMawangduiHuangdi sijing. Though incorporated under the military regime of the late Warring State's Qin state, it includes a selection from Shen Buhai's doctrine (Ch "Zhushu"), with additional content from its "Ren shu" chapter demonstrating that a philosophy promoting thewu wei reduced activity of the ruler goes back to theWarring States period.[270][271][272]
That which can be known and recognized by the ears, eyes, mind and wisdom is very superficial and incomplete, and are not sufficient to depend on. If you do not rely on them, there will be order; if you rely on them, there will be chaos. Using what is superficial to rule broadly under heaven, pacify divergent practices, and rule the myriad people - this certainly cannot succeed. The ears cannot hear a space of ten li; the eyes cannot see outside a curtain or wall; and the mind cannot know every house of three mu. Zhu shu, Shen Buhai
To follow is the method of the ruler; to act is the way of the minister. If (the ruler) acts, he will be troubled, if he follows, he will find peace. To follow the winter when it produces cold and the summer when it produces heat, why should the ruler do anything? Therefore to say: 'The way of the ruler is to have no knowledge and no action, but still he is more worthy than those who know and act,' that is to get the point. (Ren shu)
The people of Qi have a saying – "A man may have wisdom and discernment, but that is not like embracing the favourable opportunity. A man may have instruments of husbandry, but that is not like waiting for the farming seasons."Mencius
The early work ofFeng Youlan took the statesmen as fully understanding that needs change with the times and material circumstances; admitting that people may have been more virtuous anciently, Han Fei believes that new problems require new solutions.[273] Earlier thought to be rare, in fact, a changing with times paradigm, or one oftimeliness, "dominated" the age.[4]
Yuri Pines (Stanford Encyclopedia) takes Shang Yang andHan Fei's more specific view of history as anevolutionary process as contrasting. Itmight have influenced anend of history view expressed by theQin dynasty,[4] but would be a radical departure from earlier ideas.[274] The Qin idea of an eternal dynasty would seem more connected with that of relying on law rather than the ruler.[275]
In whatA. C. Graham took to be a "highly literary fiction", as Pines recalls, the Book of Lord Shang's chapter 1, "Revising the laws," opens with a debate held byDuke Xiao of Qin, seeking to "consider the changes in the affairs of the age, inquire into the basis for correcting standards, and seek the Way to employ the people." Gongsun attempts to persuade the Duke to change with the times, with theShangjunshu citing him as saying: "Orderly generations did not [follow] a single way; to benefit the state, one need not imitate antiquity."
Graham compared Han Fei in particular with theMalthusians, as "unique in seeking a historical cause of changing conditions", namely population growth, acknowledging that an underpopulated society only need moral ties. TheGuanzi sees punishment as unnecessary in ancient times with an abundance of resources, making it a question of poverty rather than human nature. Human nature is a Confucian issue. Graham otherwise considered the customs current of the time as having no significance to the statesmen, even if they may be willing to conform the government to them. Han Fei "objects to ancient authority" not only because the times have changed, but because the past is uncertain.[276][4]
Taking Shang Yang as inheriting fromLi Kui andWu Qi, despite anti-Confucianism in theShangjunshu, professorCh'ien Mu still considered that "People say merely that Legalist origins are inDao and De (power/virtue) [i.e.,Daoist principles], apparently not aware that their origins in fact are in Confucianism. Their observance of law and sense of public justice are wholly in the spirit of Confucius'rectification of names and return to propriety, but transformed in accordance with the conditions of the age." In the ancient society, punishment by law would typically only apply to the people, while the nobles are only punished by ritual. But needs change with the times.[277] Making use of the term,Shen Buhai and theGuanzi do have administrative ideas that go back to the Confucianrectification of names, or cheng ming.[278]
Sinologist Hansen viewed the morally neutral naturalism ofShen Dao as a development of the type of thinking seen inMencius and earlyMohists, beginning to emphasize a concept ofDao over nature.[209] Shen Dao promotes a "Way of Heaven", but the concept doesn't appear to have been as developed in his time, or focus on it as much as later texts.[279] Hansen took Shen Dao and Han Fei as aiming at what they took to be the "'actual' course of history", with Han Fei concretizing Shen Dao's ideas on circumstantial authority, and a changing with the times paradigm introduced in its first chapters, under theDao or "Way" ofLaozi,[280] combined with Shen Buhai in Chapter 5.[281]
Devoting large sections to drawing practical guidelines as applied directly to politics, theHuangdi Sijing attempts to apply "concrete" politics to theorizing public policy. The work does not argue the origins of society, human nature, or their relations, but it does draw broad lessons from Chinese history. Characterizing humanity and politics as constantly shifting, it treats rulership as a practical art responding to shifting events and personalities. While reflecting on failures and successes, it does not consider their situations and solutions ever exactly repeatable. It offers guidance rather than aiming at"watertight techniques", which would be more akin to the aspirations of the "great progenitors ofRationalism",Descartes orFrancis Bacon.[282]
Advocating the practice ofwu wei non-action mainly for rulers, the Han Feizi contrasts with later or more spiritual forms of Daoism as a practical state philosophy not accepting a 'permanentway of statecraft'.[283] TheHuang-Lao boshu developed a more metaphysical naturalist view, promoting a "predetermined natural order" for humanity.[284] The Han Feizi only hints at such a view, affirming the Dao as "the standard of right and wrong".[285] The Later Mohists and Han Fei moved away from an emphasis on heaven or nature,[209] towards one of a man-made Sovereignty, a view affirmed by the Han Feizi's discussion of Shen Dao.[208] Although Han Fei recallsLaozi, in this regard, Graham took them as moving in "parallel directions". Where Laozi sought to adapt to uncontrollable natural forces, the Han Feizi seeks the establishment of an "automatic" social order, with illustrations of scales, compasses and squares for "precise unimpugnable decisions."[210]
Though not "completely endorsing" their methods, after "two millennia of narrating the past to harm the present, and adorning empty words to harm the substance,"Hu Shih took Han Fei andLi Si as the "greatest statesmen in Chinese history", with a "brave spirit opposing those who 'do not make the present into their teacher but learn from the past'", and a political dictatorship less frightening than one adoring the past.[286] Hu shih tookXun Kuang, Han Fei and Li Si as "champions of the idea of progress through conscious human effort", with Li Si abolishing the feudal system, unifying the empire, law, language, thought and belief, presenting a memorial to the throne in which he condemns all those who "refused to study the present and believed only in the ancients on whose authority they dared to criticize". With a quotation from Xun Kuang:[287]
You glorify Nature and meditate on her: Why not domesticate and regulate her? You follow Nature and sing her praise: Why not control her course and use it? ... Therefore, I say: To neglect man's effort and speculate about Nature, is to misunderstand the facts of the universe.
Stressing timeliness,Sima Tan's description of the 'Dao school' says: "It (the dao or way) shifts with the times and changes in response to things", a view earlier found in Han Fei andXun Kuang. Hong Kong professor Liu Xiaogan takes theZhuangzi andLaozi as more focused on "according with nature" than timeliness. Sima Tan's description better fits with what he called Huang-Lao, with followers theoretically defining the former according to the latter.[83]
In contrast to Xun Kuang as the classically purported teacher of Han Fei and Li Si, Han Fei does not believe that a tendency to disorder demonstrates that people are evil or unruly.[288] As a counterpoint, the Han Feizi and Shen Dao do still employ argumentative reference to 'sage kings'; the Han Feizi claims the distinction between the ruler's interests and private interests as said to date back to Cangjie, while government by Fa (standards) is said to date back to time immemorial, considering the demarcation between public and private a "key element" in the "enlightened governance" of the purported former kings.[289]
Combined with Shang Yang, the meaning of Xing "performance" was gradually lost as punishment, so that Shen Buhai would look more like Shang Yang.[290] Popular in the Han dynasty, theXunzi preceding the Han Feizi likely had a distortive effect.[291] With a "Way of the Ruler" chapter like the Han Feizi,[292] its introduction was the only work to use the term as "the names of punishments".[293] RecallingLiu Xiang,Pei Yin's commentaries demonstrate some understanding of Shen Buhai again in the fifth century.[294]
Though considering shu a later term,Creel largely reflects a traditional understanding of him, with shu techniques like controlling the levers of power, appearing inactive but acting decisively when needed, hiding motivations, power and intelligence to avoid exploitation, appointing by merit, thwarting ministerial power, and only giving orders that would likely be obeyed.[295] The broader techniques contribute to a view of Shen Buhai as based in deception, present throughout the Han Feizi, but was focused on administration.[296][297]
Recalling Shen Buhai, chapter 43 considered administrative standards or method (fa) necessary, differentiating it under the term shu 术 (administrative) technique.[298] Shu is definedhere as examining or testing the abilities of ministers, appointing candidates in accordance with their capabilities, holding ministerial achievements or "performance" (xing "forms") accountable to their proposals or "titles" (ming "names") as becoming offices, and grasping fast the handles of life and death in his own hands.[299] Chapter 5 links the idea to theWay, while Xing-Ming as connected to reward and punishment is a doctrine of the Han Feizi's Chapter 7.[300]
Though its later term is the Han Feizi's,[301] retrospectively, Xing-Ming may be considered Shen Buhai "most important administrative contribution", in the sense referring to his line of practice.[302] Arguably a central concept in the Han Feizi,[303] it is at minimum a "crucial element".[304]Sinologist Goldin compared it to a "bid for contracts", allowing ministers to appoint themselves to "titles", or offices.[305] The Han Feizi's Chapters 5 "Way of the Ruler" and Chapter 7 "Two Handles" have examples of its doctrine,[306] included under shu technique in chapter 43.[307]
Creel argued: Han Fei from the lateHann state probably knows about his predecessor Shen Buhai, and past prime minister Shang Yang from the neighboringQin.[308] But the Han Feizi's Shang Yangian legal component is arguably more theoretical.[309] The Han Feizi's chapter 5 introduction to its own version of Xing-Ming administration includes specific practical recommendations, and is not just theoretical.[310] However, Han Fei likely would have considered its "impersonal governance" a suitable foundation for legal reform, as the Han Feizi says, once order is established.[311]
Empty and inactive, he waits, making titles name themselves, and making assignments determine themselves. Those who have proposals produce their own titles, and those who have assignments produce their own performance. When performance and title match each other, the ruler does not need to be involved – he lets them revert to what they really are. Chapter 5 主道 The Way of the Ruler. Christoph Harbsmeier, 2025 ed. Østergaard Petersen andYuri Pines
Monopolizing the Two Handles of reward and punishment to prevent usurpation, chapter 7's reward and punishment are dispensed based on the performance of bureaucratic roles. Their "most detailed application" is in connection with fa standards as promises ministers propose themselves. In older scholarship, this would make it an argument against older, primarilylegal positivist interpretations of the work,[312] developing out of a non-penal practice that would not have required law.[151]
A sovereign who wants to suppress treachery must examine and match performance (the form, xing 形) and title (the name, ming 名). Performance and title refer to the difference between the proposal (言 speech) and the task. The minister lays out his proposal; the ruler assigns him the task according to his proposal, and solely on the basis of the task determines [the minister’s] merit. Han Feizi Ch7. Chen Qiyou 2000[313]
Sima Qian's inclusion of Shang Yang gives the impression he was familiar with the same doctrine;[105] while there is no evidence Shang Yang literally studied Shen Buhai,[106] the Book of Lord Shang does have "doctrines of names".[314]
When the sage makes a law, he must make it clear and easily understandable. When the names (ming; words) are correct, both the ignorant and the knowledgeable can understand them.Book of Lord Shang Ch26. 故聖人為法，必使之明白易知，名正，愚知徧能知之[315]
Sima Qian'sShiji attests theFirst Emperor as proclaiming Xing-Mings's practice.[316] Though it is questionable that Xing-Ming was an integrated part of a legal system in Shen Buhai's time,[302] it arguably is in Sima Qian's model of the Qin empire.[315]
"The Qin (or "great") sage looks down at his state. In the beginning, he fixed Xing-Ming; manifested and displayed old statutes, started leveling laws and models, meticulously distinguished duties and tasks, so as to establish constancy and permanence" 秦(泰?)聖臨國，始定刑名，顯陳舊章，初平法式，審別任職，以立恒常.Sima Qian'sLi Si,Shiji Ch63[317]
Often recalled under it following theHan Feizi,Sima Qian (c. 145–c. 86 BCE) lists Shen Buhai, Han Fei and Shang Yang under the doctrine ofXing-Ming, or "form" and "name". Sima Qian attests Shen Buhai and Han Fei as favoring it, but rooted inHuang-Lao or "Yellow Emperor Daoism". Listing them under the Fa school,Liu Xiang (77–6B CE) still considered Shen Buhai's doctrine to be that ofXing-Ming, described as holdingoutcomes accountable toclaims.[318][319] Though later combined with Shang Yang, Han Fei names Shen Buhai as progenitor for his doctrine of Xing-Ming.[320]
The term Xing is an example of a model or standard (fa),[321] prominently dating back to Zhou texts takingKing Wen of Zhou as a model.[322] It still referred to models whenZichan used the term in his penal reforms.[237] However, the Han Feizi states than Shen Buhai actually uses the earlier, more common philosophical equivalent, theMohist "ming-shi", or name and reality,[323] so that it likely originates in the name and reality debates of the Later Mohists (or "Neo-Mohists") andschool of names (Xingmingjia).[324] Before this, it likely goes back to the Confucianrectification of names, or cheng ming, a term Shen Buhai's fragments still used even if the later Han Feizi contrasts with it.[325]
Liu Xiang (Pei Yin) recounts Shen Buhai's book as advocating Method rather than punishment.[294] An early bureaucratic pioneer,Shen Buhai was not so much more advanced as he was more focused on bureaucracy. Though not its only example, the Han Feizi's discussion of Method (Technique, fa-shu) in Chapter 43 provides a basic explanation for Shu, saying: "Method is to confer office in accordance with a candidate's capabilities;to hold achievement (Xing forms) accountable to claim (Ming names); and to examine the ability of the assembled ministers."[68] Though having a meritocratic goal,[326] and at least potentially filtering ministers meritocratically, as presented by Han Fei Shu's central principle may have been Xing-Ming as accountability "more than anything else".[68]
The Han Feizi's Xing-Ming method was likely the most 'mechanically' complex example of its kind for the period.Xun Kuang often has more specific criteria for the appointment of officials, but the Han Feizi'smethods are "quite detailed." In this regard, the late Warring States theories of Xun Kuang and theMohists were still far more generalized.[327] Compared with Shen Buhai and the earlier Confucians, accountability is much more developed in the Han Feizi at the end of theWarring States period. Holding ministers accountable for their proposals, actions and performance, the Han Feizi ultimately names individual ministers to roles (e.g. "Steward of Cloaks" Chapter 7), forming into explicit roles to be performed by the ministers.[328]
While Shen Buhai's has ideas corresponding more with matchingproposals with duties, the late Guanzi has an example whichA.C. Graham took as becoming closer to Han Fei's doctrine, ultimately matching office titles and duties.[278]
Scrutinizing names. Scrutinize the object according to the name, fix the name depending on the object. Name and object give birth to each other, and reversing become each other's ch'ing ("the essential without which the object will not fit the name"). If name and object fit there is order, if not, disorder... Graham, Guanzi Ch55
With their doctrines scarcely visible in the early Han outside theMawangdui silk texts, according to theShiji, the practice emerged again under the DaoisticEmperor Wen of Han and his trusted ministers, but "cautious, unobtrusive and firm", more akin to Shen Buhai than Han Fei. Attributed back to Shen Buhai, it becomes the term for secretaries who had charge of records in penal decisions by theHan dynasty.[329] With an early meaning of form,model or regulation, and fewer words in the Warring States period, the meaning of Xing (刑) is gradually lost as punishment.[330]
By the later Han, scholars less knowledgeable thanLiu Xiang were not always aware that Shen Buhai and Shang Yang differed.[331] Early connected with Shen Buhai andschool of names type figures asMethod, Xing-Ming is sometimes used to refer to a combination of Shang Yang and Han Fei by theHan dynasty. Despite a potential contribution of its meritocratic ideas to the founding of theImperial Examination, the meaning of Xing would ultimately be confused and lost in conflation with punishment (Xing 刑) by the time of theWestern Qin, sometimes as early as the third century'sEastern Han. Likely unable to interpret the term, they become "the school of punishments" after the fall of the Han dynasty.Jin Zhuo would take it as a combination, and split it, assigning the Xingmingjia School of Forms and Names as the Mingjia School of Names, and those already classified as Fajia legalists as the Xingjia or school of punishments.[332]
Informally associated by the Han Feizi withLaozi,[187] the Han Feizi traces its specific idea of Xing-Ming back to Shen Buhai, likely going back to thename and reality debates of the LaterMohists, Xingmingschool of forms and names, and Confucianrectification of names, whose terms Shen Buhai still used even if the Han Fei contrasts with them.[333] With the Qin'sBook of Lord Shang only visibly intersecting central Chinese tradition with theHan Feizi,[24] something akin to whatSima Qian termed aHuang-Lao "Daoism" would theoretically grow to dominance among the Chinese officialdom by the time of the Qin dynasty.[196]
Sima Qian pairs the two, saying "Shenzi (Master Shen) was rooted in Huang-Lao (Daoism) and prioritized xingming."[334]Sima Tan criticizes strict administrative practices in favor of his Daoism,[150] but Han Fei does not developmechanically strict Xing-Ming until the end of the Warring States period.[335] Sima Tan clearly includes Xing-Ming as part of hisDao school (Daojia), in less technical terms.[336]
When the congregation of ministers has assembled, the ruler lets each one state what he will do. If the actual result coincides with his claim this is known as the 'upright'; if the actual result (Xing "forms" for Han Fei) fails to coincide with his claim,(Ming) this is known as 'hollow'. Sima Tan[336]
Contrasting withLaozi, Han Fei and Qin break from a Huang-Lao Daoist Xing-Ming focusing on a Way of Heaven based on an inner reason of laws, inasmuch they are more concerned with law as a means of control than whether it accords with a Way of Heaven. Han Fei refers to a Way of the Ruler or Sovereign.[315]Shen Dao, theHuangdi Sijing, andLaozi still referred to a more conceptually "naturalist" Way of Heaven,[337] and Shen Buhai's doctrine, with theHuainanzi it likely influenced, still believed in "not interfering with the natural tendency of names and affairs to manage themselves."[338]
Together with a Huang-Lao tradition placing greater emphasis on (standards) fa, Sima Qian may have paired Laozi and Zhuangzi with Shen Buhai and Han Fei because the latter two "prioritized xingming", important in the recovered texts.[339] The Sijing considering matching realities (Xing) with speech and the "names" of things (ming) an important part of "implementing the Way of Heaven", both in administrative and more general terms.[340] While the Han Feizi's Way of the Ruler may not as directly emphasize concepts ofYin Yang, theHuangdi Sijing does. Analyzing Yin and Yang to ensure reliable results, it similarly matches "names" and "realities" (shi) as a practical way to appoint, monitor, and assess ministers.[341]
Though by its own statements theZhuangzi generally favors self cultivation,[342] differing "dramatically" from prior chapters,[343] the Outer Zhuangzi's Chapter 13 "Way of Heaven" gives secondary places to Xing-Ming administrative ideas akin to Shen Buhai. Emphasizing priorities in-order ofwu wei,dao,de, benevolence, appointment and investigation, and finally reward and punishment,A.C. Graham interpreted its hierarchy as emphasizing thewu wei reduced activity of the ruler, mainly criticizing those who reverse its priorities.[344] Not fully "Daoist" as later later understood, it would generally be taken as reflecting earlyHuang-Lao or "syncretist" thought.[345]
TheHuainanzi's Zhushu, which Goldin translates as "Taking Shu as One's Ruler" or "Esteeming Technique", conveys naturalistic ideas akin to Shen Buhai in the same sense Liu Xiang recalled him, as "to follow and comply, and delegate responsibilities to one's subordinates."[338]
"Names rectify themselves; affairs settle themselves. Thus he who has the Way grants names their autonomy but still rectifies them; he follows affairs but still settles them." Shen Buhai "The Great Body"[338]
Each name names itself, each category categorizes itself. Things are so of themselves; [the ruler] lets nothing emerge from himself. Huainanzi "Zhushu"[338]
While the Han Feizi includes ideas of law,Laozi's fa is usually translated as still referring to general standards or models.[346] Laozi and Zhuangzi generally lacked and even opposed law because they did not regard words and names as "sufficient to express the Way",[347] Laozi saying that "the name that can be named is not the constant name." However,A.C. Graham sees this as meaning not that words are useless, but only that they are imperfect descriptors. The work balances inadequacies using opposites.[348]
Make freedom from desire your constant norm; thereby you will see what is subtle (妙)[349] Constantly with desire, thereby observe the boundaries[350] (徼jiao literally "border", "outer fringe"James Legge.) (Laozi 1)
The Han Feizi's commentaries on Laozi are a critique.[351] For Han Fei, "names" refer to things like ministerial proposals,[352] or "titles", so that Shen Buhai's concept of "names" can critique Laozi, at least for the Han Feizi's purposes.[188] The Han Feizi's chapter 5 Zhudao (道主) or "Way of the Ruler" follows up Laozi, recalling Shen Buhai in parallel style with an idea of names "rectifying themselves".[187] Pairing (Ming) "names" or proposals with (Xing) "forms" or results, results serve as astandard (fa) of comparison for claims, forming bureaucratic functions of opposing processes.[352] Though not included amongstSima Qian's short list of chapters, he may have consideredHan Fei to be "rooted" in Huang-Lao based on Chapter 5's conception of theWay, including ideas of the Way as a standard and hints of metaphysics.[353]
Though the Han Feizi's chapters five or eight are not as academic as later commentaries in trying to illustrate theDaodejing's actual meaning, using Laozi for its own purposes is similar to other early commentaries like theXiang'er.[188] Compared with Laozi, the Han Feizi's "Way of the Ruler" has much less ambiguous language,[354] promoting "the ruler's quiescence",[152] "practical recommendations" and the management of ministers rather than a Daoist way of life or metaphysics. But it "affirms the primacy of thedao", recalling a passage from Laozi with the Way as the origin of the world. It follows recalling Shen Buhai, whose ruler followed the 'natural order' or Way (Dao), responding rather than acting himself, orwu wei.[355]
In "strictly practical" terms,[356] Shen Buhai, Shen Dao or Han Fei might loosely be thought of as originating in a Daoistic 'way in thought'[357] in the sense of governmental models (or standards, fa) "derived fromDao",[203] which Han Fei ultimately supplants with law.[358]Laozi,Zhuangzi, Shen Buhai or Sima Qian did not generally advocate laws (fa),[359] but the recoveredMawangdui Silk TextsHuangdi Sijing did emphasizes standards (fa) as including law.[360] As the first sentence of the work,[361] itsJingfa text regards theDao as generating standards,[203] with arguments more comparable tonatural law.[220] "Huang-Lao" would theoretically differ in still seeking more to conform law with the Way.[358]
Shen Buhai, Han Fei, andSima Tan' preferably 'inactive' ruler contracts an assembly of ministers, correlating Ming ("names", or verbalclaims) such as job proposals with the Xing "forms", "shapes" or results that they take. With early examples in Shen Buhai (Shenzi), several of theMawangdui silk texts bear resemblance to Han Fei's Chapter 5 discussion ofXing-Ming and its "brilliant (or intelligent) ruler", as do other eclectic Huang-Lao typified works, like theGuanzi,Huainanzi, and Sima Qian'sShiji.[362]
[The sage ruler] does not like or dislike things because they are beautiful or ugly, nor is he pleased or angered by punishments and rewards. He lets each name name itself and each category categorize itself. Affairs proceed from what is so of themselves with no interference from him personally. Huainanzi
In the period preceding unification, Qin laws diverged significantly from ideas espoused inBook of Lord Shang (Shangjunshu):[62] while retaining Shang Yang's reforms, the Qin abandoned his anti-Confucianism and strict, harsh penal policy, and ultimately his heavy emphasis on agriculture. After Shang Yang,King Huiwen of Qin is attested as having pardoned the death penalty in a case involving murder, based on Confucian ethics.[4][363]Sima Qian depicts Qin Shi Huang as emphasising law and order, praising himself as a "sage ruler of benevolence and righteousness ... who cares for and pities the common people".[364] A major reform of the primarily administrative Qin dynasty focuses on restraining ministers, instituting office divisions that cannot punish at will.[365][366]
TranslatorYuri Pines takes the final chapter (26) of the Shangjunshu as reflecting the administrative practices of the late pre-imperial and ImperialQin dynasty, aligning with knowledge of Qin governance.[367] Although written as an interview withShang Yang, its recommendations would have been too sophisticated for his time.[368] The chapter proposes setting up offices of strictly trained legal experts at the central, provincial, and local levels, tasked with answering all questions posed by the people and officials. With the degrees of minor officials kept simpler, responses would be strictly controlled throughdouble-entry registration, with one half given to the inquirer, and the other filed in sealed archives for retrieval. Cases would have to be judged in accordance with the previous responses.
Though intended more to promulgate the law and governance of the sovereign than safeguard the rights of citizens in a modern sense, it requires their cooperation. Protecting the people from ministerial abuse becomes more important than punishing them. Taken as universally beneficial, in an attempt to achieve the "blessed eradication of punishments through punishments", clear laws are taught that the people can use against ministers abusing the statutes. Punishing the ministers according to the penalties of the statute abused, archival corruption by the legal experts could be punishable up to the death penalty. Han Fei makes similar recommendations, but compared with the late part of the Shangjunshu he may not yet have developed the idea or concern oflegal mechanisms for protecting people from the bureaucrats, he is more focused on accomplishing order through the administrative power of the ruler.[369][370]
If, as depicted, at least part of the Han Feizi dates to the late Warring States period, the Shangjunshu could have circulated on the eve of unification. The work's adoption by the Han Feizi can give the appearance of a living current for the old harsh punishments of Shang Yang that can mistakenly be imposed backward. Een if the Shangjunshu only passingly suggests that a need for punishment would pass away, the Qin nonetheless abandoned Shang Yang's heavy punishments. The Book of Lord Shang itself is not a homogeneous ideology, but shifts substantially over its development. As the work's first reference, the Han Feizi recalls its earlier Chapter 4, saying:[371]
Gongsun Yang said: "When [the state] implements punishments, inflicts heavy [punishments] on light [offenses]: then light [offenses] will not come, and heavy [crimes] will not arrive. This is called: 'eradicating punishments with punishments'.
Despite what might be assumed from associated texts, the Qin "were not extraordinarily severe for their time",[372] and form a continuity with the early Han dynasty, abolishing mutilations in 167 BCE. In the heavy degrees of punishment, the Qin's mutilating punishments include tattooing, nose cutting, and foot cutting, but the latter two are only mentioned infrequently, decreasing over time. Heavy labor is most common. After sentence, mutilating punishments in the Qin and early Han were then commonly pardoned or redeemed in exchange for fines, labor or one to several aristocratic ranks, even up to the death penalty. Depending on severity and circumstances, sentencing may skip over mutilating punishment directly to a mutually preferential sentence of labor, thereafter potentially pardoning them into a period of borderlands military defense service.
Not the most common punishments, the Qin's mutilating punishment likely exist in part to create labor in agriculture, husbandry, workshops, and wall building. Replacing mutilation at lower level heavy punishment, labor from one to five years becomes the common heavy punishment in early Imperial China, generally in building roads and canals, with only a minority going to build the Great Wall. As a component of general colonization, the most common heavier punishment becomes expulsion to the new colonies, with exile considered a heavy punishment. The Han engage in the same practice, transferring criminals to the frontiers for military service, with Emperor Wu and later emperors recruiting men sentenced to death for expeditionary armies.Dong Zhongshu criticizes the Qin for failing to punish criminals, but exile itself as a heavy punishment in ancient China dates back to at least theSpring and Autumn period.[373][374]
Han-era writerDong Zhongshu (179–104 BCE) considered Qin officials and taxes severe, but did not characterise punishments as such; in fact, Dong criticized the Qin system for its inability to punish criminals.[126] Aiming to reduce punishment to a minimum, the idea of redemption can be found in theAnalects of Confucius, attempting to ensure a correct application of therectification of names.[375]
ForHan Fei, the power structure is unable to tolerate an autonomous ministerial practice of reward and punishment. Han Fei mainly targets ministerial infringements. A main argument by the Han Feizi's for punishment by standards, Chapter 7's The Two Handles, is that delegating reward and punishment to ministers has led to an erosion of power and collapse of states in his era, and should be monopolized, using severe punishment in an attempt to abolish ministerial infringements, and therefore punishment. Monopolization can be considered a core of Han Fei's practice of fa laws and methods, aiming to prevent usurpation.[376]
Mostly concerned with the ministers, Han Fei does not regard the people as an enemy, as the earlier part of theBook of Lord Shang did.[377] The Han Feizi occasionally even has ideas of public good. "Preventing the strong from exploiting the weak" will benefit the sage ruler Han Fei addresses, but also the elderly and the orphan. While Han Fei believes that a benevolent government that does not punish will harm the law, and create confusion, he also believes that a violent and tyrannical ruler will create an irrational government, with conflict and rebellion.[378] For this reason, the Han Feizi also opposescorvée, with hardship turning the people toward powerful ministers to the detriment of the ruler and state.[379]
Shen Dao, the first member of Han Fei's triad between the figures in the later chapters, never suggests kinds of punishments, as that was not the point. The point in Shen Dao's framework was that it would involve the ruler too much to decide them personally, exposing him to resentment. The ruler should decide punishments using fa standards.[380] Han Fei does not suggest kinds of punishments either, and would not seem to care about punishment as retribution itself. He only cares whether they work, and therefore end punishments.
Although "benevolence and righteousness" may simply be "glittering words", other means can potentially be included. While recalling Shang Yang, Han Fei places a more equal emphasis on reward to encourage people and produce good results; punishment for him was secondary to simply controlling ministers through techniques. Although these could be expected to include espionage in his time, they consisted primarily simply in written agreements.[381]
Emphasizing a dichotomy between the people and state, theBook of Lord Shang in particular has been regarded as anti-people, with alienating statements that a weak people makes a strong military. But, such statements are concentrated in a few chapters, and the work does still vacillate against ministerial abuses.[4]Michael Loewe still regarded the laws as primarily concerned with peace and order. They were harsh in Shang Yang's time, mainly out of hope that people will no longer dare to break them.[382][4]
Sima Qian argues the Qin dynasty, relying on rigorous laws, as nonethelessinsufficiently rigorous for a completely consistent practice, suggesting them as not having always delivered justice as others understood it.[383] From a modern perspective, it is "impossible" to deny at least the "'basic' justice of Qin laws". Rejecting the whims of individual ministers in favor of clear protocols, and insisting on forensic examinations, for an ancient society they are ultimately more definable by fairness than cruelty.
With contradicting evidences, as a last resort, officials could rely on beatings, but had to be reported and compared with evidence, and cannot actually punish without confession. With administration and judiciary not separated in ancient societies, the Qin develop the idea of the judge magistrate as a detective, emerging in the culture of early Han dynasty theater with judges as detectives aspiring to truth as justice.[384][385]
Inasmuch as Han Fei has modernly been related with the idea of justice, he opposes the early Confucian idea that ministers should be immune to penal law. With an at least incidental concern for the people, the Han Feizi is "adamant that blatant manipulation and subversion of law to the detriment of the state and ruler should never be tolerated":[386]
Those men who violated the laws, committed treason, and carried out major acts of evil always worked through some eminent and highly placed minister. And yet the laws and regulations are customarily designed to prevent evil among the humble and lowly people, and it is upon them alone that penalties and punishments fall. Hence, the common people lose hope and are left with no place to air their grievances. Meanwhile, the high ministers band together and work as one man to cloud the vision of the ruler.
Chapters 43 and 40 of the Han Feizi shaped an early modern elementalizing view of Shen Buhai as focused on Shu (technique), Shen Dao on Shi (power), and Shang Yang on law, uncritically taking the Han Feizi as superseding the others.[387] But Shen Dao's fragments suggest he was also focused more on fa.[388]
Legalism has been cited by scholars and commentators as having ideological influence on the current governance of thePeople's Republic of China, particularly under thegeneral secretaryship of Xi Jinping.[389][390][391] Scholar Sam Crane has referred to the modern Chinese state as "Confucianism on the outside, Legalist on the inside."[392]
Deng Xiaoping's slogan "a cat is a good cat if it can catch rats, no matter it is a white or a black cat" has been compared with the Han Feizi.[393]
^Lundahl 1992 Although a given in the west, Chinese scholars did not regard the entire Han Feizi as written by Han Fei either. They regarded the pseudonymous Han Fei as one major author. It likely includes the sympathetic material of at least one other later emissary. The Daodejing commentaries are typically taken as addendums.
^Shang Yang's mutual responsibility groups for instance were not a permanent feature of Chinese governance, but were implemented in times of disorder as late asDing Richang, with "Baojia" or mutual responsibility a likely example. Mutual responsibility existed inLi Shanchang's time before a new dynastic legal code was drawn up.
^Graham 1989, p. 268,282-283;Yu 2024, p. 58-65;Hansen 1992, p. 364,367;Jiang 2021, p. 240 cites an example of Shen Buhai's fa that likelyis law, but it's only one example..
^Pines-Harbsmeier and Chen 2000 are very similar; Pines-Harbsmeier note that the public accessibility of laws is the central point of chapter 26 of the Book of Lord Shang, but chose not directly include it in their translation. Chen 2000 mentions it, but not recording.
^Vandermeersch 1987, p. 196 The pre-archaeological work ofLéon Vandermeersch found it difficult to believe that they were ever implemented, but conforms with Pines estimation that they were likely not implemented in Shang Yang's time. C'est un système beaucoup plus perfectionné, trop pour avoir jamais été mis en pratique, qui est exposé au dernier chapitre duShangjunshu.
Chang, Leo S (1998).The Four Political Treatises of the Yellow Emperor: Original Mawangdui Texts with Complete English Translations and an Introduction. Society for Asian and Comparative Philosophy. Monograph No.15.University of Hawaiʻi Press.
Hsieh, S.Y. (1985). "The Legalist Philosophers". In Barlow, Jeffrey G.; Bishop, Donald H. (eds.).Chinese Thought: An Introduction. Motilal Banarsidass.ISBN9780836411300.
Knechtges, David R. (2010). "Jia Yi 賈誼". In Knechtges, David R.; Chang, Taiping (eds.).Ancient and Early Medieval Chinese Literature: A Reference Guide, Part One. Leiden: Brill. pp. 417–28.ISBN978-90-04-19127-3.
Bodde, Derk (1986),The state and empire of Chʻin. In Cambridge History of China, pp. 20–102
Loewe, Michael (1993).Early Chinese Texts: A Bibliographical Guide. Berkeley: Society for the Study of Early China; Institute of East Asian Studies, University of California Berkeley.ISBN1-55729-043-1.
Louie, Kam (1986).Inheriting tradition: interpretations of the classical philosophers in Communist China, 1949-1966. Oxford University Press.ISBN9780195840469.
Lundahl, Bertil (1992). Lundahl, Bertil (ed.).Han Fei Zi: The Man and the Work. Institute of Oriental Languages, Stockholm University.ISBN9789171530790.
Mair, Victor H. (2000). "TheZhuangzi and its Impact". In Kohn, Livia (ed.).Daoism Handbook. Leiden: Brill. pp. 30–52.ISBN978-90-04-11208-7.
Major, John S. (2015).Luxuriant Gems of the Spring and Autumn. Columbia University Press.ISBN978-0231169325.
Makeham, John (1990). "The Legalist Concept of Hsing-ming: An Example of the Contribution of Archaeological Evidence to the Re-Interpretation of Transmitted Texts".Monumenta Serica.39:87–114.doi:10.1080/02549948.1990.11731214.
Pines, Yuri (2024a),Introduction: The fa Tradition in Chinese Philosophy. In: Pines, Y. (eds) Dao Companion to China's fa Tradition, Springer, Cham, pp. 1–20,doi:10.1007/978-3-031-53630-4_1
Song, Hongbing (2024),Chapter 9. Two Perspectives on the Fa Tradition: Politics Versus the Rule of Impartial Standards. In: Pines, Y. (eds) Dao Companion to China's fa Tradition. Dao Companions to Chinese Philosophy, vol 19., Springer, Cham, pp. 265–294,doi:10.1007/978-3-031-53630-4_10
Yang, Jiron (2020). "A Review of the Principles and Characteristics of Legalist Thoughts in "Guanzi" Studies in Taiwan, China".Modern Law Research.1 (2):16–23.doi:10.37420/j.mlr.2020.006.
.jpg)
