The Fajia (Chinese: 法家; pinyin: fǎjiā), also known as the School of fa (encompassing law and method) and frequently rendered as Legalism, constituted a significant bibliographic school within classical Chinese philosophy, primarily during the Warring States period. This school integrated administrative principles traditionally believed to originate from Huang-Lao Daoism. Its proponents addressed the practical governance issues inherent in the volatile feudal system, and their philosophical contributions were instrumental in shaping the Chinese empire and its bureaucratic structure. Key tenets included the advocacy of rule by law, advanced administrative methodologies, and robust concepts of state and sovereign authority. The Fajia philosophy is frequently analyzed through a realist lens. Although its influence endured, the period from the Qin to the Tang dynasties was predominantly defined by the "centralizing tendencies" derived from Fajia traditions.
Fajia (Chinese: 法家; pinyin: fǎjiā), or the School of fa (incl. law, method), often translated Legalism, was a bibliographic school of primarily Warring States period classical Chinese philosophy, incorporating more administrative works traditionally said to be rooted in Huang-Lao Daoism. Addressing practical governance challenges of the unstable feudal system, their ideas contributed greatly to the formation of the Chinese empire and bureaucracy, advocating concepts including rule by law, sophisticated administrative technique, and ideas of state and sovereign power. They are often interpreted along realist lines. Though persisting, the Qin to Tang period was more characterized by the 'centralizing tendencies' of their traditions.
This philosophical school encompasses the more legalistically oriented doctrines of Li Kui and Shang Yang, alongside the administratively focused ideas of Shen Buhai and Shen Dao. Sima Qian traditionally asserted that Shen Buhai, Shen Dao, and Han Fei were influenced by Huang-Lao (Daoism). Shen Dao potentially exerted considerable early influence on both Daoist thought and administrative practices. These foundational intellectual currents were subsequently synthesized in the Han Feizi, which notably contains some of the earliest commentaries on the Daoist scripture, the Daodejing. During the later Han dynasty, Guan Zhong was recognized as a precursor to this school, with the Guanzi being incorporated subsequently. Sima Qian's accounts indicate that later dynasties regarded Xun Kuang as a mentor to both Han Fei and the Qin Chancellor Li Si; Xun Kuang was favorably acknowledged in the 1970s, alongside scholars such as Zhang Binglin.
Shang Yang's reforms profoundly influenced Chinese law, transforming the Qin state from a marginal entity into a highly centralized and militarily formidable kingdom, ultimately culminating in China's unification in 221 BCE. Although Chinese administrative practices do not originate from a singular source, Shen Buhai's concepts significantly advanced the meritocratic system subsequently adopted by the Han dynasty. Sun Tzu's Art of War reflects principles found in the Han Feizi, including notions of power, administrative technique, wu wei inaction, impartiality, punishment, and reward. Despite facing severe criticism in subsequent eras, the impact of these thinkers extended beyond the Qin dynasty; successive emperors and reformers frequently drew upon the frameworks established by Han Fei, Shen Buhai, and Shang Yang, whose ideas re-emerged as integral aspects of Chinese governance even when later dynasties formally endorsed Confucianism.
The Han Feizi's synthesis
The scholar Shen Dao was apparently more renowned than Shang Yang or Shen Buhai in earlier periods, particularly due to his association with the esteemed Jixia Academy. The Confucian Xun Kuang criticized Shen Dao for an alleged preoccupation with fa, a concept on which Shen Dao was indeed arguably focused. Chapter 40 of the Han Feizi discusses Shen Dao's perspectives on shi power, yet portrays him as a naturalist, likened to a dragon ascending on clouds, a depiction also found in the Zhuangzi. The Zhuangzi generally adopts a more impartial stance, presenting Shen Dao as a proto-Daoist figure alongside Laozi and Zhuangzi, rather than merely a theoretician of power. Shen Dao advocated for proportionate, rather than extreme, punishment and reward. Consistent with Laozi's philosophy, Shen Dao's ideal sage ruler "does not harm men," allowing the populace to self-regulate and eliminate societal harms.
Although the Book of Lord Shang exhibits familiarity with doctrines associated with Shen Buhai and Shen Dao, its elaboration of these concepts remains rather circumscribed. Given their roles as chancellors in neighboring states, the doctrines attributed to Shang Yang of the Qin state and Shen Buhai of the Han state would likely have converged prior to the Qin imperial unification. According to statements within the Han Feizi, the Book of Lord Shang possibly achieved widespread circulation alongside the Guanzi during the late Warring States period. As the earliest extant reference to Shang Yang outside of Qin, the Han Feizi likely played a crucial role in defining the concept of the fa school.
While the figures associated with the fa school were arguably centered on the concept of fa, the majority of individuals categorized under this school are discussed in the Han Feizi. Han Fei arguably characterized Shang Yang's school as a fa "Legalist" school, interpreting fa as encompassing law, whereas Sima Tan introduced a more expansive definition of the fa school. Despite Shen Buhai's promulgation of laws, and his later identification as a Daoist, Han Fei, Sima Qian, Liu Xiang, and Yang Xiong did not classify him as a penal Legalist; instead, they associated him with Shu (administrative) techniques of governance.
The *Han Feizi* integrates *shu* techniques, which encompass *fa* (laws and methods), suggesting that *fa* constitutes the primary component within the text. However, in the works of Shen Buhai and Shang Yang, these concepts manifest as two distinct and opposing philosophical schools. Scholars Wang and Chang identified the *Han Feizi* as "the most systematic and theoretically sophisticated synthesizer of the various strains of *fajia* thought," even incorporating elements subsequently categorized as Daoist. Yuri Pines further posits synthesis as a fundamental philosophical principle underlying the *Han Feizi*. Han Fei himself would likely have preferred to be recognized as a preeminent synthesizer rather than merely a Legalist advocate for a singular doctrine. His adversaries, conversely, would characterize him as a narrow Legalist.
The inclination to laud Han Fei as a paramount synthesizer and to prioritize the *Han Feizi* over other ancient Chinese political philosophers originates from Han Fei's own self-promotional portrayal of Shen Dao, Shen Buhai, and Gongsun Yang as proponents of isolated political concepts, which he alone purportedly integrated into a cohesive philosophy. This assertion parallels Sima Tan's syncretic argument for *daojia*, encapsulated by the sentiment: "my rivals each understand one thing, but only I understand everything." (Goldin)
Categorization within the Imperial Library
The term *Fajia* ("school of *fa*") was introduced in the treatise On the Essentials of the Six Schools of Thought, attributed to the early Han dynasty historian Sima Tan (165–110 BCE) and appended to the final chapter of the *Shiji*. Within this treatise, Tan advocated for the supremacy of a syncretic political *Daojia*, or "Dao school," asserting its capacity to integrate the most advantageous principles from six distinct philosophical traditions. This term subsequently became associated with Laozi-Zhuangzi Daoism. Notably, the *Shiji* itself does not employ "schools" terminology, instead dedicating a specific chapter to Shang Yang and listing Shen Dao within the Jixia Academy alongside Xun Kuang, an institution Han Fei is also believed to have attended.
The introduction of categorical "schools" or "families" represented an innovative conceptual framework. Such classifications would have been considered "weird and useless to consider them abstractly, as a modern historian might." For Confucian archivists, these schools served as illustrations of a Confucian viewpoint, presenting alternative approaches deemed failures in contrast to Confucianism. The Han Confucian scholar Liu Xiang (77–6 BCE) designated *Fajia* as a category for Masters Texts during the establishment of the imperial library, thereby establishing it as a significant classification in Han dynasty catalogs, notably chapter 30 of the *Book of Han* (*Hanshu*, 111 CE).
- Sima Tan commended *Fajia* for its emphasis on venerating rulers, subordinating subjects, and meticulously delineating official duties to prevent overreach. He characterized the *fa* school (*Fajia*) as prioritizing administrative protocols that disregard kinship and social status, ensuring equitable treatment for all and consequently elevating the ruler beyond ordinary humanity. Conversely, Tan, who defined kindness as differential judgment based on kinship and social status, critiqued *Fajia* for its severity and lack of compassion, deeming it an unsustainable, temporary policy.
In addition to the Book of Lord Shang, the works of Shen Buhai, Shen Dao, and the Han Feizi, six other texts were categorized under this heading; these are now lost, including those by Li Kui and the Han minister Chao Cuo (Hanshu CH1), leaving four works that remain unidentifiable. The *Hanshu* identifies Li Kui's work as the earliest comprehensive treatise on regulations, which subsequently influenced Shang Yang. The *Guanzi* text, attributed to the much earlier Guan Zhong, is a later compilation that was only officially reclassified from Daoism during the Sui dynasty. Furthermore, the *Lüshi Chunqiu* encyclopedia, compiled during the late pre-Imperial Qin state, contained distinct chapters dedicated to Shang Yang and Shen Buhai.
Sinologist Ivanhoe characterized the Han dynasty scholarly concept of *jia* (families) for grouping thinkers as "quite sophisticated," recognizing them as "genuine and helpful collections of thinkers" united by an "intellectual brothers or cousins" relationship based on family resemblance. However, this classification did not necessitate adherence to a "checklist of beliefs" for inclusion, nor did it require the study of a specific founder or progenitor.
Methodological Approaches
While acknowledging that Shen Buhai issued some legal provisions, Chapter 43 of the *Han Feizi* traditionally differentiates Shen Buhai from the *fa* (law) of Shang Yang by employing the term *shu* techniques. However, Shen Buhai himself apparently did not utilize this term. Han Fei appears to have elaborated upon a pre-existing concept of *shu* techniques, with which Shen Buhai became associated, thereby incorporating him within this framework. Han Fei does not, for instance, assert that he invented his terminology. Although he engages in definitions and distinctions, he frequently presumes the reader's familiarity with his subject matter. Han Fei discusses technique earlier in Chapter 38. While much of its philosophical foundation originates from Shen Buhai, he is not explicitly featured in its discussion.
If you do not enlist or rely on legal officials, if you do not look into how cross-checking and classifying is administered, if you are not clear about standards and measures, if you rely exclusively on your own hearing and sight, if you have to put your own intelligence to work and only then uncover wickedness, does that not show a lack of technique(s of rule)? Han Feizi 38.5.1. Christoph Harbsmeier
The concept of *shu* (technique) also appears in Chapter 24 of the *Book of Lord Shang*, but it is less elaborated, merely employing techniques to denote methods for managing ministers. Although Qin became acquainted with Shen Buhai, it is more plausible that the concept was already undergoing independent development rather than being directly adopted by the authors from the Han state.
Given the broad semantic scope of *fa*, the *Han Feizi* potentially elaborates the term *shu* (technique) to differentiate private *fa* methods from *fa* (law) as a transparent and public system. Chapter 38 differentiates *shu* from *fa* (law) in this manner. Shen Buhai himself utilized *fa*, which Creel termed "method"; Chapter 32 defines Shen Buhai's *fa* as "bestowing rewards according to actual merits, conferring appointments according to one's abilities." Nonetheless, imperial librarian Liu Xiang persisted in categorizing him under shu despite also classifying him under *fa*.
As for shu (Shen Buhai's associated) 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 hold fast the handles of [the power 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 (keeps in his own hand; monopolizes). HFZ 43. 10-20.
When Sima Tan established the *fa* school of thought, he incorporated the differentiation of official roles within its framework. Chapter 30 of the *Han Feizi* enumerates seven techniques, including the assessment and comparison of perspectives, ensuring the reliability of rewards and punishments, assigning subordinates responsibility for proposals, issuing ambiguous edicts and directives, retaining personal knowledge while seeking counsel, and conveying messages contrary to one's true intent. Chapter 38 further encompasses the utilization of legal officials, the implementation of cross-referencing and categorization, and the elucidation of standards.
Subsequently, serving as a secondary designation, Shang Yang, Shen Buhai, and Han Fei were progressively grouped and identified under the rubric of "Xing-Ming" throughout the Han dynasty, with Sima Qian, for instance, presenting Shang Yang as an expert who had studied this concept. However, no evidence in Shang Yang's extant works suggests that he studied the identical "names" doctrines as Shen Buhai and Han Fei. While he did possess a doctrine concerning "names," it diverged significantly.
Shang Yang Ch.43
Earlier chapters of the *Han Feizi* (14, 42) regarded Shang Yang as an exemplary reformer, alongside Guan Zhong and Wu Qi; Wu Qi's reforms, however, did not achieve the same level of success as Shang Yang's. In contrast, Chapter 43 of the *Han Feizi* differentiated Shang Yang from Shen Buhai as representing two distinct schools (*jia*), characterizing Shang Yang's school as primarily concerned with *fa*, encompassing law, ordinances, decrees, and the administration of rewards and punishments.
It can be argued that Shang Yang was equally a military reformer; Sima Qian, for instance, credits him with an "extraordinarily broad range of reforms." In an attempt to assert its superiority over earlier thinkers, the chapter commends Shang Yang's contributions, acknowledging the necessity of *fa* (law), yet critiques his contemporary school as being excessively concentrated on this single aspect.
When Gongsun Yang governed Qin, he established a system of mutual reporting and responsibility for performance;
*Fa* law dictates that regulations and ordinances are formally recorded and publicly displayed in official archives, ensuring that punishments and fines are perceived as unavoidable by the populace. Concurrently, rewards are instituted for those who adhere cautiously to the laws, while penalties are imposed upon transgressors of these ordinances. This framework serves as the authoritative guide for ministers.
Over time, the figures of Shang Yang and Shen Buhai gradually converged in perception, with Shen Dao's influence diminishing and a declining comprehension of Shen Buhai's contributions. Consequently, their collective image narrowed into a penal association, primarily with Shang Yang and Han Fei, throughout the Han dynasty. Ultimately, they were collectively held responsible for the collapse of the Qin dynasty.
Delayed Introduction and Recognition
Individuals categorized by Confucian archivists under the broader "fa school" likely did not constitute self-aware, organized intellectual traditions comparable to those of the Confucians or Mohists, nor did they achieve a similar degree of public prominence, and were not entirely distinct from their intellectual contemporaries. During Mencius's era, "Fajia" likely denoted merely "law-abiding families" (jia), or "economist" in the later Guanzi text. It is improbable that any individual politically self-identified with a "fa school," and they were not collectively classified under this designation until Sima Tan formally recognized it as a distinct school in the Han dynasty's *Records of the Grand Historian*.
Initially a minor state located in the then-remote mountainous western region, the early Qin state rose to prominence following Shang Yang's reforms during the early Warring States period, thereby arguably establishing him as the era's "most famous and influential statesman." His primary success and influence stemmed from his role as an officeholder instrumental in the foundation of Imperial China, rather than as a philosopher who established a school of thought. The later compilers of the *Zhuangzi* were acquainted with Shen Dao, yet likely not with a formalized Legalist school. Xun Kuang exhibited knowledge of Shen Buhai and Shen Dao, but apparently lacked awareness of Shang Yang. The reforms implemented by Qin's Prime Minister Fan Sui during his tenure might have been more anticipated to garner attention for Qin.
Although Qin's rise to power led to increased, albeit brief, discussions of the state in most contemporary texts, prominent later figures like Mencius largely maintained an indifferent stance towards it. Qin was not perceived as culturally distinct until the later stages of the period. As the late Warring States period progressed, the prevailing opinion of Qin deteriorated, leading to its characterization as barbarian; consequently, major texts of that era offered scant information about it, notwithstanding growing interest spurred by its military conquests. Certain policies instituted by Shang Yang persisted into the later Han dynasty; however, by the late Warring States period, the *Lüshi Chunqiu*'s internal assessment of him had already diminished, and Qin law had diverged considerably from the philosophical tenets of works subsequently categorized as Legalist.
Rulers' Aides
Instead of merely advocating for specific proponents of *fa* (law) and administrative methods, it is arguable that Shang Yang, Shen Buhai, and Han Fei were primarily concerned with *fa* as an art of governance, functioning as members of the ruling class, with the former two serving as prime ministers in their respective states. Shen Dao and Han Fei posited that kings govern primarily through their inherent authority, power, position, or charisma to dispense rewards or punishments, rather than through specialized expertise in legal or ritualistic discourse. Although Shen Buhai's ruler is depicted as managing ministers rationally, Shen Buhai explicitly advocates for isolating the ruler from the burden of articulating specific details, except when feigning ignorance to stimulate the ministers' initiative and articulation.
The ruler orders the essentials; the ministers carry out the details... He who excels at being a master, relies on [an appearance of] stupidity, establishes himself in insufficiency, places himself in timidity, conceals himself in having no undertakings, hides his motives, and covers his tracks. He demonstrates non-action to All under Heaven. One who shows men that he has a surplus, men rob him, whereas one who shows men that he has not enough, men give him. To speak ten times and ten times be right; to act a hundred times and a hundred times succeed—this is the task of a minister and not the Way of the ruler.
The *Han Feizi* portrays Han Fei, reportedly a descendant of the Han state nobility, as an outsider "blocked by malevolent political heavyweights." In a comparison of Shen Buhai and Shang Yang, Han Fei criticizes his predecessor, Shen Buhai, for an alleged failure to implement legal reforms. However, Shen Buhai did enact laws. While Shen Buhai, as chancellor of the Han state, primarily focused on bureaucratic administration, his technical advancements were not superior to those of his contemporaries. In contrast, texts like the *Xunzi* and *Han Feizi* represent more sophisticated technical developments from the late Warring States period. Similarly, Shen Dao did not demonstrate greater technical sophistication.
Regarding early Warring States mobilization, the principles articulated in the *Book of Lord Shang* appear to be more universal than unique, suggesting that similar texts from that era may simply not have been preserved. Through the *Han Feizi*, Han Fei's predecessors became linked with Shang Yang and were subsequently introduced into Qin. Confucian archivists documented at least four works under the *fa* school that are now unidentifiable. This count excludes works from other philosophical schools that also incorporated *fa* principles, some of which have also been lost. Despite Shen Buhai's limited legal enactments, and Han Fei's potential view that Shen Buhai's legal acumen did not rival Shang Yang's, Sima Qian contends that the Han state remained effectively governed, highlighting its successful defense as a smaller entity.
Despite the scarcity of comprehensive information regarding the Warring States period, their developmental trajectory, particularly concerning economic centralization, bore significant resemblances to that of Qin. Qin's distinctiveness primarily stemmed from the extent of its reforms, which included the registration and mobilization of all adult males, thereby positioning Qin for eventual dominance. However, Qin did not fully differentiate itself from other "feudal" states until the late Warring States reforms enacted by Fan Sui, which consolidated power within the monarchy and instituted a more aggressive military strategy. Consequently, Shang Yang, as the architect of a formidable state previously regarded as a peripheral region, achieved institutional influence through reforms that enhanced military capabilities.
Even if *fa* laws and methods (or *fa* law, in the context of Legalism) are considered the predominant elements within the *Han Feizi*, Legalism would not constitute a distinct ideology if the ruler fundamentally accepted that law served their interests. Instead, it would align Legalism directly with the ruler's perspective, which can be fundamentally characterized as a Warring States period ruler seeking *fa* standards and regulations for the purpose of conquest. While Han Fei presumes the ruler's interest in such principles, it is important to note that Shang Yang did not originate penal law.
*Fa*, encompassing laws, was not solely the purview of the *fa* school. The objective shared by Shang Yang and Han Fei—to mitigate social disorder—was also a concern for other prominent figures of the era, including Confucius, Laozi, Mozi, Zhuang Zhou, Mencius, and Xun Kuang. Although Shang Yang's approach was more radical and achieved greater success, the issues of agriculture and conscription were central to most Warring States period thinkers, who proposed diverse solutions. Mencius, a Confucian contemporary of Shen Dao, also deemed *fa* essential, at least in its earlier connotation of measurement, yet he posited that a benevolent ruler would naturally attract loyal soldiers.
Legalism
Schneider (2018) emerged as a contemporary proponent of Legalist interpretation. According to Schneider, Legalism "would seem to entail that those thinkers... were committed to the law," conceptualizing it as a synthesis of realism and "state consequentialism." This perspective asserts that "whatever was good for the state, fortifying its structure and strengthening its ruler, would lead to order with beneficial consequences for everyone." This Legalist interpretation posits that Han Fei's connection to Shang Yang was more profound than his relationships with other predecessors. Disregarding the broader scope of *fa* beyond mere law, Schneider exclusively endorses an instrumental understanding of Legalism.
Schneider's interpretation fluctuates between defining "the objective of the Legalist philosophers" as strengthening "the position of the state" or "the position of its ruler." The elite, including ministers and officials, are considered an "important instrument of the ruler's power." Furthermore, actions such as "unifying weights and measures, promulgating law codes, registering households, collecting taxes, and recruiting men for official work and for the army" are all categorized as the ruler's "handles of state." Han Fei is not recognized as a self-aware philosopher but rather as a member of the ruling class, serving as a counselor to monarchs. Ultimately, Schneider only acknowledges the value of rewards and punishments for Han Fei when they are "in the hand of an able monarch."
The Warring States period may have harbored concepts akin to natural law, though Han Fei, a pragmatist, is not considered their most exemplary proponent; the Huangdi Sijing (Boshu) offers a more suitable illustration. The limited endurance of severe penalties from the Warring States through the Han dynasty can be attributed, in part, to the inadequate justifications provided by figures such as Han Fei. Although Ban Gu categorized the Han Feizi within the *fa* school, both he and Sima Qian primarily regarded it as a treatise on governance methodologies.
Nevertheless, Han Fei acknowledged the utility of law for "correcting the faults of the high, rebuking the vices of the low, eliminating the disorders, settling the erroneous, avoiding the mistakes, subduing the arrogant, straightening the crooked, unifying the customs of the masses, holding the people in awe and veneration, rebuking obscenity and danger, or forbidding falsehood and deceit." This assertion was largely echoed by the Yongzheng Emperor of the Qing dynasty. Han dynasty judges exhibited a greater alignment with the principles of the rule of law. Notably, Judge Zhang Shizhi endeavored to "restrict the conflicts between the imperial power and the observation of law," positing that law possessed inherent value independent of the Emperor.
When Emperor Wen of Han requested the imposition of a more severe punishment, Zhang Shizhi submitted a memorial to the emperor, articulating that law serves both the 'Tian Zi' (the Son of Heaven or the emperor) and the populace. He argued that the prescribed legal punishment should be applied to the individual, asserting that any harsher penalty would erode public trust in the legal system.
Monarchism
While sections of the *Zhuangzi* convey profound disdain for the ruling elite, the direct advocacy for the abolition of monarchy likely did not emerge until Bao Jingyan. Li Kui's *Canon of Laws* commences with the declaration: "In the governance of the True Monarch, no matters are more urgent than dealing with thieves and robbers."
In chapters such as "Way of the Ruler" (Ch5), Han Fei delineates the diverse *fa* techniques as instruments of sovereign authority. He "unwaveringly advocates" *fa* as a crucial method for addressing sociopolitical crises. Given its role as "the unifying thread of Warring States period political thought," his ideology is demonstrably monarchist, a stance universally adopted by his contemporaries who recognized the indispensable role of the ruler in adapting laws to contemporary circumstances.
Although the *Book of Lord Shang* prioritizes the state over the ruler, Shang Yang exemplifies this historical trajectory. Similar to Mencius, Xun Kuang, the *Zhan Guo Ce*, and *Yanzi chunqiu*, the initial chapter of the *Book* centers on the monarch. It posits that the more conservative court aristocracy could only be overcome with the monarch's endorsement. Duke Xiao likely recruited ministers such as Shang Yang partly to consolidate his personal authority against the "unruly aristocrats" of the 'Qin ruling lineage,' thereby seeking to expand the elite by appointing meritorious individuals at the expense of the established nobility.
Despite acknowledging resemblances to the rule of law, Chinese scholarship, extending back to Liang Qichao, interpreted Han Fei's approach as a synthesis of *fa* (encompassing law) and what they termed "rule by man," which included concepts of "techniques of rule" and "positional power." So long as the sovereign retains the prerogative to abrogate laws, "the ideal of the 'rule of *fa*'" is "ultimately reduced" to an individual, or, as contemporary Chinese scholarship elucidates, "a reflection of the unshakable monarchic form of traditional Chinese government." The apparent contradiction between monarchical rule and legal governance is not a logical inconsistency but rather a product of contemporary political realities.
Yuri Pines challenges the perception of Han Fei as merely an proponent of "monarchic despotism." Referencing A.C. Graham's (1989) Legalist interpretation, Pines initially pondered whether Han Fei might have been an insincere monarchist, promoting *fa* law and methodology at the expense of an inept ruler. However, Pines (2024) ultimately concluded, with some reservation, that Han Fei was an unwavering institutional monarchist, notwithstanding his low expectations for the typical monarch. He posited that intelligent, average monarchs would exercise self-restraint and depend on the established system. Pines asserts that the abolition of monarchism itself was "unthinkable," even if it could potentially benefit the state; instead, Han Fei envisioned intellectuals demonstrating deference to a mediocre monarch and governing on their behalf.
Eliminating Punishments
Sima Tan characterized the 'fa school' as strict, yet he and Liu Xiang evidently recognized that *fa* (standards) were applied in administration, extending beyond the severe penal laws initially established by Shang Yang and subsequently abolished. These standards were not consistently described as strict in earlier periods. The later association with Tan's *fa* school significantly influenced perceptions of them. The *Han Feizi*, written at the close of the Warring States period, champions a precisely defined, mechanically rigorous administrative system. However, this concept of strict mechanical operation, which aligns more closely with Han dynasty thought, is not apparent in earlier works, including those of Han Fei's predecessor, Shen Buhai.
Even if Shen Buhai had exerted immense effort to persuade Marquis Zhao to employ *shu* (techniques), deceitful ministers would still have misrepresented his directives. Although *shu* methods were applied in conjunction with the ruler, the absence of systematic *fa* among officials presented a significant challenge.
*Han Feizi* 43.2; Chen 2000: 959.
Shen Dao proposed that punishments and rewards should be proportionate, avoiding extremes, whereas Liu Xiang asserted that Shen Buhai sought to abolish punishment through the application of supervisory *shu* (technique). In contrast to Shang Yang, the *Han Feizi* likely diminishes Shen Buhai's significance compared to Sima Qian's account. It did not consider Shen Buhai an effective or suitable legal reformer, as he neither consolidated existing laws nor unified regulations and ordinances.
Herrlee G. Creel adamantly maintained that Shen Buhai was not a proponent of harsh penal Legalism. However, later interpretations, filtered through the terminology of the *Xunzi* and *Han Feizi*, might have presented him as such. His given name, 申不害, literally translates to "does not harm," a concept he shared with Shen Dao and Laozi. The "Daoist" *Shiji*, while attributing the misuse of his doctrine to Li Si, ranked Shen Buhai just below Laozi and Zhuangzi, considering him an implementer of the Way during his era, particularly in defense of the Hann state. Although the *Shiji* acknowledged Shang Yang's accomplishments, it did not hold him in equally high esteem.
In the eighth year, Shen Buhai received the appointment as prime minister of Han. He reformed the state's *shu* (technique) and enacted the Way. Consequently, the country achieved internal stability and effective governance, deterring regional lords from launching attacks.
*Shiji* 45.
Legalists or Administrators?
The etymology of the term "Legalism," used to denote *Fajia* or the "School of *fa*," remains obscure. Joseph Needham (1954), for instance, applied "Legalism" to describe a positive law interpretation of *fa*, exemplified by regulations concerning roads. While the term "Legalism" has persisted in some conventional usage, such as in Adventures in Chinese Realism, academic scholarship has largely eschewed it, primarily due to its anachronistic nature and concerns articulated by Herrlee G. Creel in his 1961 work, Legalists or Administrators?.
The *Han Feizi* characterized Shang Yang as primarily concerned with *fa* standards, encompassing legal principles, and Shen Buhai with *fa* (standards) within administration, distinguishing this as administrative *shu* (technique). Creel rendered Shen Buhai's *fa* as method, portraying him as potentially the "first systematic theorist of organizational and managerial science." This interpretation highlights his advocacy for a hierarchical, merit-based system for appointing ministers, and notes a historical lineage, distinct from the *Han Feizi*, that opposed severe penal law.
Generally, the application of *fa* (standards) in administration does not inherently denote punishment. While Han Fei and Shen Dao occasionally employ *fa* (standards) in a manner analogous to law, incorporating reward and punishment, they frequently utilize *fa* similarly to Shen Buhai: as an administrative technique. Shen Buhai specifically used *fa* (standards) to evaluate officials' responsibilities and performance, a sense of *fa* often underscored in the *Han Feizi*. For instance, a notable quotation from the *Han Feizi* illustrates this:
An enlightened ruler utilizes *fa* (standards) to select personnel, rather than making personal choices. He employs *fa* (method) to assess their merit, instead of relying on his own judgment. Consequently, competence cannot be concealed, nor can deficiencies be embellished. If individuals falsely praised cannot be promoted, and similarly, those unjustly criticized cannot be demoted, then distinct boundaries between ruler and subject will be established, and order will be readily achieved. Therefore, the ruler's sole recourse is *fa*.
Modern interpretations suggest Shen Buhai's ruler, by adhering to specific guidelines, exhibits characteristics aligning with Legalist principles. Han Fei might have viewed this internal adherence as a triumph for the *fa* method, though contemporaries likely did not categorize it as literal Legalism. Beyond contractual agreements and established laws, Shen Buhai's ruler utilized secret, internal bureaucratic *fa* guidelines to safeguard against ministerial influence. Conversely, the *Han Feizi* distinguishes Shen Buhai's shu technique from Shang Yang's *fa*, emphasizing the latter's inclusion of clear and publicly accessible law.
Regarding methods of governance, they are to be kept concealed. These methods enable the ruler to coordinate diverse objectives and discreetly guide ministers from a hidden vantage point. Thus, while laws are optimally clear, techniques should remain unobserved. (Han Feizi 38.16; Chen2000: 922–923 ["Nan san" 難三])
The *fa* method, or *shu* technique as designated in the *Han Feizi*, assists Shen Buhai and his ruler in interpreting data, establishing qualifications and responsibilities, and hindering ministerial deception. The *Han Feizi* champions legal reform, promoting standardized technical procedures to optimize ministerial functions. Despite advocating for expanded legal frameworks, Han Fei operated within a political context characterized by powerful ministers who sought to control rewards and punishments. Similar to Shen Buhai, this background led Han Fei to prioritize the management of ministers over the general populace, viewing the monopolization of power as essential.
The *Han Feizi*'s deliberate decision to incorporate law was not coincidental, aiming, at least indirectly, to benefit the populace through the establishment of state order. This approach has been likened by legal scholars (rather than Sinologists) to a legislative rule of law, given its evolution beyond merely serving the ruler's interests and its independent operation once instituted. Han Fei asserted, "The enlightened ruler governs his officials; he does not govern the people." He argued that a ruler cannot directly govern the populace in a large state, nor can direct subordinates effectively do so. Instead, the ruler employs specific methods to control officials.
Agriculture and Warfare
In his 1986 Cambridge History, Michael Loewe identified *fa* law as a foundational principle of the Book of Lord Shang, essential for maintaining state authority. Shang Yang's *fa*, particularly in its early phase, emphasized collective responsibility and incorporated both rewards and punishments. Loewe posited that Shang Yang's primary objective was to forge a "unified, powerful state, based on an industrious peasantry and disciplined army," thereby establishing a military rank hierarchy that extended into agricultural organization during the later period. "Agriculture and war" might have constituted Shang Yang's most significant rallying cry. While Xun Kuang likely accurately attributed Shen Dao's focus to *fa* administrative standards, Shen Dao's secondary concept of *shi*, or "situational authority," discussed in Chapter 40 of the Han Feizi, is notably integrated into The Art of War.
During the early Warring States period, monarchs consolidated power, recruiting officials to implement universal census, taxation, agricultural development, and ultimately, universal military service as components of broader mobilization strategies. The *Book of Lord Shang*, the sole surviving text of its genre, exemplifies the extensive population mobilization characteristic of this era. The Qin state, guided by its overarching policy, structured society militarily, forming familial, mutually responsible groups of five and ten for military conscription. Sima Qian regarded this reform as Shang Yang's foremost achievement.
In addition to standardized penal law, the ideal ruler envisioned by Shang Yang and Han Fei would supervise colonization, taxation, and military affairs. For Han Fei, this also encompassed the administration of the bureaucracy inherited from Shen Buhai, enabling accountable ministers to volunteer for office based on their proposals. Han Fei vehemently opposed traditional privileges, demagoguery, tyranny, and corvée labor, deeming them detrimental to these objectives. Yuri Pines interprets Shang Yang's "overarching commitment" as the creation of a centralized, "rich state and powerful army," with the ultimate goal of "unifying all under heaven" and establishing a new dynasty. In this context, governance by *fa* standards and penal sanctions were considered secondary to achieving military victory.
Both Prime Ministers Shen Buhai and Zichan prioritized the recruitment of officials and the strengthening of state defense. While Shen Buhai's administrative treatise did not primarily focus on military matters, he is featured in the *Stratagems of the Warring States* as both a diplomat and a military reformer, particularly concerning defensive strategies. Historically, he is credited with ensuring the security of his state, recognized for his contributions to bureaucracy and for enhancing the military strength of the Hann state. Despite potential criticisms from Han Fei when compared to Shang Yang, both the *Stratagems* and Sima Qian regarded the defense of the Han state as a significant outcome of Shen Buhai's foreign policy and administrative reforms.
Loewe posited that Shang Yang's economic and political reforms were unprecedented and held greater significance than his individual military accomplishments. Nevertheless, he was arguably an equally influential military reformer, potentially standardizing the road network for strategic military deployment, and personally commanded Qin forces to victory against Wei. The Han dynasty also acknowledged him as a prominent military strategist. Furthermore, a work attributed to him, potentially the same text, is cataloged within the Han Imperial Library's Military Books section under 'Strategists'.
Pines interprets the core doctrine of the *Book of Lord Shang* as establishing a connection between individuals' inherent nature or dispositions (*xing* 性) and their 'names' (*ming* 名), asserting that *fa* (laws) cannot be effective without 'investigating the people's disposition'. The text advocates for the implementation of laws that enable individuals to 'pursue the desire for a name,' encompassing aspirations for fame, elevated social status, or, if appropriate, material wealth. The underlying premise was that by associating these 'names' with tangible benefits, individuals pursuing them would be less inclined to commit offenses and more motivated to engage in diligent labor or military service.
Daoism
Concurrent with the ascendance of Confucianism, what Tan termed the Dao school (*Daojia*, or 'Daoism') underwent a redefinition, characterized by its rejection of 'ritual learning' and its abandonment of 'humanity and duty,' asserting that governance could be achieved solely through the application of 'purity and vacuity.' Excluding Shang Yang (and Li Kui), the Confucian categorization of texts into distinct schools primarily groups works that align with a concept of syncretic political 'Daoism' as presented in the *Shiji*, a formulation distinct from later understandings of Daoism.
Sima Qian likely preferred to disassociate individuals from Shang Yang, given his personal disapproval. Instead, he affirmed that Shen Buhai, Shen Dao, and Han Fei were "rooted" in Huang-Lao, a tradition associated with the Yellow Emperor and Laozi (Daoism). While Sima Qian favored Laozi and Zhuangzi, Tan's 'Dao school' exhibits greater congruence with what they characterized as Huang-Lao, which is synonymous with *Daojia* ('Daoism') in the *Shiji*. The term *Daojia* evolved to denote Laozi-Zhuangzi Daoism approximately a century after Sima Qian, extending into the third century A.D., a period marked by the resurgence of Zhuangzi's philosophy amid political fragmentation.
Despite perceiving Han Fei as cruel, Sima Qian examines him and Shen Buhai in conjunction with Laozi and Zhuangzi, positing their origins in *dao* ('the Way') and *de* (inner power, virtue), or 'the meaning of' the Way and its virtue, as articulated in the *Daodejing*. Sima Qian regarded Laozi as the most profound among these figures, positioning Shen Buhai immediately after Laozi and the unconstrained Zhuangzi.
The Way revered by Laozi was founded upon emptiness; consequently, he responded to transformations through the principle of non-action. Therefore, the discourse within his writings is both profound and subtle, rendering it challenging to fully grasp. Zhuangzi, unconstrained by the Way and virtue, freely articulated his ideas; nevertheless, his fundamental tenets also revert to spontaneity. Master Shen Buhai addressed the humble in accordance with their station, applying the principle of 'names and substance (*Ming-shi* 名實)'. Master Han Fei meticulously delineated issues, thoroughly comprehended the essence of affairs, and clearly distinguished between right and wrong. However, he was characterized by extreme cruelty and a notable lack of compassion. All these concepts derived from the essence of the Way and its virtue, yet Laozi was considered the most profound among them. *Shiji* 63
As proponents of what they termed Daoism, the Simas were expected to articulate arguments from this perspective, thereby advancing their own positions. However, Chapter 5 of the *Han Feizi* also incorporates concepts from Shen Buhai and Laozi, though presented within the framework of the *Han Feizi*'s distinct critique.
A.C. Graham, a scholar, interprets the *Zhuangzi* as advocating a private existence, in contrast to the *Daodejing* (Laozi), which he views as containing principles for governance. Xun Kuang, during his era, did not consider these two traditions to be part of a single school, listing them distinctly. Chapter 33 of the *Zhuangzi* positions Shen Dao chronologically before Laozi and Zhuang Zhou, yet it does not explicitly link Shen Dao to a literal Daoist or Legalist school, suggesting that Shen Dao was likely unfamiliar with such classifications. Consequently, if Shen Dao predated these figures, he might have exerted an influence on their thought.
Works on Governance
Sima Qian, alongside foundational figures of the Han dynasty, asserted that Shen Buhai, Han Fei, and Shen Dao were "rooted" in Huang-Lao, or the "Yellow Emperor and Laozi (Daoism)." Although this terminology may be retrospective, Sinologist Hansen (Stanford Encyclopedia) distinguished it as a "ruling fǎjiā ('Legalist') cult" and posited that a form of Huang-Lao "Yellow Emperor Daoism" theoretically gained prominence within the Chinese officialdom by the Qin dynasty, a concept supported by the Mawangdui Silk Texts. Huang-Lao administrators, such as Cao Shen, identified by Sima Qian, adopted a more "hands-off" governance style, reflecting a general tendency rather than a cohesive doctrine. While the *Huangdi Sijing* shares similarities with the *Daodejing* or *Han Feizi*, it exhibits a stronger resemblance to the *Guanzi*.
Given that distinct Daoist or Legalist schools did not exist prior to the Han dynasty, individuals who incorporated Laozi commentaries into the *Han Feizi* likely perceived these as treatises on governance rather than belonging to separate philosophical traditions. Sima Qian and Ban Gu characterized Huang-Lao as works pertaining to statecraft. Although the extent to which such content was available during Shen Buhai's era remains uncertain, the *Jingfa* section of the *Sijing* and the *Guanzi* conceptualize *fa* (administrative standards) as originating from the Dao. This theoretical framework positions these texts, along with certain figures later labeled "Legalists" by Confucians, within a "loosely Daoist" paradigm centered on the principles of rule.
Although the *Sijing* presents a more "naturalist" understanding of the Way, which could potentially constrain a ruler, Shen Buhai and Shen Dao also exhibited naturalist tendencies, with Shen Dao evolving from an earlier naturalism toward a more developed concept of Dao. The *Han Feizi* and later Mohists diverged from the earlier naturalism espoused by Shen Dao and Laozi. While Shen Dao and the *Huangdi Sijing* previously referenced a "Way of Heaven," the *Han Feizi* more explicitly discusses a "Way of the ruler." The later *Han Feizi*, *Guanzi*, and *Sijing* all share comparable conceptualizations of principles and the Way as an art of governance, with the *Han Feizi* dedicating three chapters to this specific topic.
The Laozi commentaries within the *Han Feizi* could theoretically predate the *Xunzi*, despite potentially being later additions to the *Han Feizi* itself, confined to a limited number of chapters. Nevertheless, the *Han Feizi* demonstrates a "sustained effort" to incorporate a Daoistic framework. These commentaries, approximately contemporaneous with the Mawangdui silk texts and the *Huangdi Sijing*, collectively suggest the emergence of a syncretic intellectual trend that gained prominence from the late Warring States period through the Qin dynasty. Although the *Han Feizi* might not represent the most exemplary instance of Daoistic syncretism, translator W.K. Liao regarded Chapter 20, "Commentaries on Lao Tzŭ's Teachings," as academically rigorous.
While some scholars have proposed a post-*Han Fei* dating for the Mawangdui Silk Texts, suggesting their compilation during the early Han dynasty when their appeal would have persisted, the vast majority of scholars assign them a pre-Han origin. Michael Loewe, for instance, dated the *Jingfa* text within this collection to before the Qin unification. The Yellow Emperor features prominently in one of these texts. Among various intellectual currents, the *Boshu* text, which is more metaphysical yet retains a political orientation, presents arguments more akin to natural law. This text also contains content bearing resemblances to the ideas of Shen Buhai, Shen Dao, and Han Fei, with some passages being identical to those attributed to Shen Dao.
Wu Wei
Traditionally, Shen Buhai has been considered rooted in (Laozi) Daoism, a view often attributed to Sima Qian. Some earlier modern Chinese scholars, particularly, accepted Sima Qian's account as factual, based on comparative analysis. Although early scholarship unanimously regarded Shen Buhai as Daoist-rooted, Sinologist Herrlee G. Creel challenged this chronology, asserting that Shen Buhai was not a (Laozi) Daoist during his own lifetime. Shen Buhai's thought, which exhibits some Confucianistic elements, most closely aligns with the *Han Feizi*, and he may have predated the *Daodejing*. Nevertheless, if this is the case, his ideas demonstrate a "striking" resemblance to those of Laozi.
Yuri Pines, in his Dao Companion to China's fa tradition, suggests that early thinkers such as Shen Buhai may have been influenced by Laozi, despite scholar Pei Wang's primary focus on the distinctions and commonalities among Laozi, the Huangdi Sijing, and Han Feizi. If such influence existed, Shen Buhai's approach was distinctly more administrative, interpreting "inactivity" as the strategic "holding of power" while delegating routine managerial responsibilities. He underscored the importance of the ruler's internal tranquility, yet simultaneously promoted a system of tallies to ensure accountability among trustworthy ministers.
While Zhuangzi generally advocated for refraining from action, Laozi and Shen Buhai shared a comparable understanding of wu-wei (non-action) as a governmental methodology. However, the conceptualization of wu-wei by Shen Buhai and Han Fei, particularly concerning ministerial oversight, diverged from that of Laozi and Zhuangzi. For Shen Buhai, and consequently his ruler, non-action was primarily a demonstrated posture rather than a state of genuine inactivity.
Creel posited a comparable connection with Confucius, suggesting that Shen Buhai might have been influenced by Confucian thought. Both Shen Buhai and Confucius prioritized the selection of competent ministers; however, Shen Buhai significantly modified this principle by instituting rigorous oversight of their performance. By refraining from direct involvement in specific details or ministerial duties, Shen Buhai's concept of wu-wei, or "inactivity," enabled the ruler to maintain overarching supervision of the government.
The ruler, according to Shen Buhai, endeavors to selectively minimize personal involvement by depending on ministerial expertise and established techniques. A parable within the Lushi Chunqiu illustrates this by advising the ruler to defer to technique and ministers for matters like livestock management, rather than employing personal judgment. The narrative suggests that if the ruler resorts to personal judgment, such reliance could provoke disputes with ministers.
This inherent contradiction becomes more evident in sections of the Han Feizi, where skepticism is voiced regarding the ruler's ability to disengage from personal regulatory duties, especially the systematic evaluation of ministerial performance. Nevertheless, the text notably advocates for the ruler's withdrawal from direct political engagement, entrusting responsibilities to ministers. It implies that if a ruler possesses a capable minister, such as the one depicted in the Han Feizi, the ruler's time might be better spent on administrative tasks.
Laozi
The authors of the Han Feizi may have consulted an earlier, more politically oriented version of the Daodejing, suggesting a deeper political engagement than typically inferred from the text. However, interpreting the Daodejing as merely cynically political would be an oversimplification. Nonetheless, when considered alongside qigong, it can be regarded as a guide for political governance and military tactics. Unlike modern editions, the Mawangdui text and two of the three earlier Guodian Chu Slips reverse the order of the text's two sections, prioritizing political commentaries, or "ruling the state." While this arrangement may not represent the singular "original" version, it is probable that the political contemporaries of the Han Feizi encountered the text in this sequence.
While arguably deficient in explicit metaphysics, the related content often incorporates mythological elements. Nevertheless, distinct from earlier philosophical traditions, the Daodejing highlights quietude and emptiness as manifestations of wu-wei. Wu-wei, a foundational concept of what later became Daoism, is presented as a governmental function across various traditions, including the early Daodejing, Shen Buhai, Han Fei, Zhuangzi, and Huang-Lao Daoism. These traditions underscore the political utility of reduced activity as a control mechanism for ensuring survival, social stability, longevity, and effective governance, advocating for inaction to capitalize on advantageous circumstances. Even if the authors of the Han Feizi did not fully subscribe to Laoist tenets, their work effectively critiqued Confucianism and Mohism, advocating for impartial laws and techniques as means to reinforce the authority of a less interventionist (wu-wei) ruler.
The Daodejing posits the Way as inherently nameless, yet acknowledges that the creation of "names," such as titles, becomes unavoidable with the implementation of regulations, cautioning against their excessive proliferation. The text advises against an abundance of laws, articulating the principle 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." This concept likely influenced the notion that laws should align with an impartial Way (of Heaven), with the Way itself serving as the source of legal principles.
Although not a direct illustration of Xing-Ming, the broader concept of a less interventionist (wu wei) ruler bears comparison with passage 17 of the Daodejing. J. J. L. Duyvendak interpreted this passage as emphasizing the value of public discourse, describing it as "arousing wide interest." In contrast, Creel viewed this concept as "quite old in Chinese literature," characterizing it as a form of Daoism with a strong inclination towards Legalism. Creel cites the Wenzi, which draws upon the Daodejing, Han Feizi, and Huainanzi, as an illustrative example. The 'enigmatic' passage from the Laozi, while not explicitly mentioning rulers, appears to describe a sovereign who "does everything without acting." In its Guodian and Mawangdui renditions, this passage is integrated with passage 18.
In the most ancient times, rulers were either unknown or merely acknowledged...
Should the prince's good faith towards the populace prove insufficient, the people's trust in their ruler will consequently diminish.
The sage rulers were indeed thoughtful, valuing their pronouncements!
Upon the completion of tasks and the smooth functioning of affairs, the populace universally declared: "We have accomplished this ourselves!"....
When the profound Way deteriorates, "humanity and justice" emerge.
When the state and dynasty descend into disarray, "loyal ministers" appear. (Duyvendak, pages 17-18)
In contrast to an emphasis on words, certain translators, such as John Ching Hsiung Wu, offer a broader interpretation that prioritizes the populace's faith, aligning with the preceding statement. Shen Dao's work, "Understanding Loyalty," articulates a "concern that a focus on loyalty arises only when things have already begun to go wrong." Although the Book of Lord Shang acknowledged some significance in public opinion, it maintained that the populace should instead rely on the ruler's system of rewards and punishments. The Han Feizi, conversely, advocates against trusting ministers. Consistent with Confucianism and other sections of the Laozi, trust constituted a crucial Daoistic (Huang-Lao) value during the early Han dynasty, extending into the Confucian era, particularly during the time of Gongsun Hong.
The later Daodejing commentaries found in the Han Feizi exhibit parallels with the Daoist philosophy of the Guanzi Neiye, particularly its "Seven Standards" chapter, which links the Way with established patterns and principles. The Han Feizi primarily employs the Laozi as a thematic framework for governance methodologies. While the Han Feizi incorporates Daoistic notions of objective perspectives, sometimes described as "mystical states" (if these were present in its source materials), it does not definitively endorse universal moralities or natural laws. Instead, it shares with Shang Yang and Shen Dao a perspective that views humanity as fundamentally self-interested. Despite advocating for passive mindfulness, noninterference, and quiescence, and opposing the manipulation of governmental mechanisms, the capacity to prescribe and command remains an inherent component of the Han Feizi's Xing-ming administrative approach.
While Shang Yang is not typically associated with these early Daoist connections, the Shang Yangian figure Sang Hongyang, active during the Han dynasty, also notably quotes the Laozi. Chao Cuo may have experienced a similar influence. However, such influences likely constituted a broader cultural phenomenon. Furthermore, numerous Confucian scholars were also impacted by the Daodejing.
Syncretism
Although Shen Buhai may not fully align with the philosophies of Laozi or Zhuangzi, he is appropriately categorized with the "Daoism" prevalent during the Jixia Academy's period as a "practical political thinker." The Huangdi Sijing presents another alternative model of wu wei from this era, advocating for an active stance adopted at "the right moment." Despite his emphasis on appearances, had Shen Buhai's writings been quoted from the Zhuangzi, he would likely have been recognized early on as a "Daoist" as that category developed, with the exception of specialists favoring Zhuangzi. His practice of wu wei, characterized by "inactivity," was a method of overcoming the strong, which Creel likened to Judo.
The adept ruler adopts an appearance of foolishness, positions himself in a state of inadequacy, presents himself with timidity, and conceals himself through inaction. He obscures his intentions and hides his movements. He demonstrates to the world that he does not intervene. An individual who displays an abundance will have their possessions forcibly seized, whereas one who indicates scarcity will receive provisions. Consequently, those in proximity develop affection for him, and those afar yearn for his presence. The powerful are subdued, and those in peril are safeguarded. The active experience insecurity, while the tranquil maintain composure. (Qunshu zhiyao 36, attributed to Shen Buhai, from Wei Zheng)
Sima Qian characterized Shen Buhai and Han Fei as originating from Huang-Laozi ("Daoism") and mentioned them alongside Zhuangzi. While Shen Buhai or Huang-Lao thought might place greater emphasis on concepts such as *fa* or *xing-ming*, these distinctions emerged as later Confucian concerns. Although the *Daodejing*, similar to the *Zhuangzi*, arguably presents a critical perspective on law, the *Zhuangzi* ultimately acknowledges the utility of administrative techniques, specifically *Xing-Ming*, within governance. Although more evident during the early Han dynasty, a philosophy resembling what Sima Qian termed "Huang-Lao Daoism" likely gained prominence even in the late Warring States period.
Sima Tan critiqued *fa* when it was "strict or unkind," as he defined it, yet asserted that the Daoist school integrated the beneficial or fundamental principles from all other philosophical traditions. This syncretic approach, characteristic of "Huang-Lao" thought, defined the late Warring States period. Consistent with the concept of *wu wei* found in Laozi and Zhuangzi, Sima Tan's interpretation of Daoism primarily opposed Confucianism, viewing it as overly burdensome for the ruler. Furthermore, it emphasized adaptability to changing circumstances, aligning with the *Han Feizi* and certain sections of the *Zhuangzi*. Sima Tan advocated that a ruler should "do what is appropriate to circumstances."
Laozi's revered Way was founded upon emptiness, leading him to respond to changes through non-action. Shiji 63
("Daoism") enables individuals to act in accordance with temporal shifts, adapt to evolving circumstances, establish societal norms, and inspire innovation. Sima Tan
Sinologist Chad Hansen contended that China's official bureaucracy increasingly adopted a Huang-Lao "Daoistic" orientation during the late period, exhibiting a diminished influence from Zhuangzi. Although Confucians categorize the *Lüshi Chunqiu* as *Zajia* ("Syncretist") rather than *Daojia* ("Daoist") or *Fajia* ("Legalist"), earlier scholarship identified within it a "Daoist-Legalist" synthesis comparable to the ideas of Shen Buhai, Shen Dao, Han Fei, Guanzi, and the Mawangdui *Huangdi sijing*. Despite its integration into the military administration of the late Warring States Qin state, the text incorporates selections from Shen Buhai's doctrine (Chinese: "Zhushu"), alongside additional material from its "Ren shu" chapter, which collectively illustrate that a philosophy advocating for the ruler's reduced activity through *wu wei* originated in the Warring States period.
What is perceivable and comprehensible through the senses and intellect is inherently superficial and incomplete, thus insufficient for reliance. Disregarding these limitations fosters order, whereas dependence upon them leads to chaos. Employing superficial understanding to govern the realm, reconcile disparate customs, and rule the populace is destined to fail. The ears cannot discern sounds across ten *li*; the eyes cannot penetrate beyond a curtain or wall; and the mind cannot comprehend every dwelling within three *mu*. Zhu shu, Shen Buhai
Following constitutes the ruler's method, while action defines the minister's approach. Should the ruler engage in action, he will encounter difficulties; by following, he will achieve tranquility. If the ruler merely observes winter producing cold and summer generating heat, why should he undertake any action? Therefore, the assertion that 'the way of the ruler is to possess neither knowledge nor action, yet remain more esteemed than those who know and act,' precisely captures the essence. (Ren shu)
Adapting to Temporal Changes
Feng Youlan's early scholarship posited that statesmen fully comprehended the evolving nature of societal needs in response to temporal and material conditions. While acknowledging that ancient populations might have exhibited greater virtue, Han Fei contended that novel challenges necessitate innovative solutions. Contrary to earlier assumptions of its rarity, a paradigm emphasizing adaptation to changing times, or one of timeliness, demonstrably "dominated" that historical era.
Yuri Pines (Stanford Encyclopedia) identifies a contrasting, more specific historical perspective in Shang Yang and Han Fei's work, characterizing history as an evolutionary process. This perspective might have contributed to the Qin dynasty's concept of an "end of history," though such a notion would represent a significant divergence from preceding philosophical ideas. The Qin dynasty's aspiration for an eternal dynasty appears more aligned with reliance on legal frameworks than on the individual ruler.
A. C. Graham, as recalled by Pines, characterized the opening of Chapter 1, "Revising the laws," in the Book of Lord Shang as a "highly literary fiction." This chapter commences with a debate initiated by Duke Xiao of Qin, who sought 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 endeavors to persuade the Duke to adapt to contemporary circumstances, with the Shangjunshu quoting him: "Orderly generations did not [follow] a single way; to benefit the state, one need not imitate antiquity."
Graham specifically drew parallels between Han Fei and Malthusians, noting Han Fei's unique pursuit of a historical explanation for evolving conditions, particularly population growth, and acknowledging that an underpopulated society merely requires moral bonds. The Guanzi posits that punishment was unnecessary in ancient times due to abundant resources, framing it as an issue of poverty rather than inherent human nature, which is typically a Confucian concern. Graham also contended that contemporary customs held no intrinsic significance for statesmen, even if governments might align with them. Han Fei's objection to ancient authority stems not only from the changing times but also from the inherent uncertainty of the past.
Despite the anti-Confucian stance evident in the Shangjunshu, Professor Ch'ien Mu considered Shang Yang to be a successor to Li Kui and Wu Qi, asserting that "People say merely that Legalist origins are in Dao 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." Historically, legal punishment in ancient society typically applied only to common people, while nobles were subject solely to ritualistic sanctions; however, societal needs evolve over time. Shen Buhai and the Guanzi, utilizing this concept, incorporate administrative principles traceable to the Confucian rectification of names, or *cheng ming*.
Sinologist Hansen interpreted Shen Dao's morally neutral naturalism as an evolution of the philosophical currents found in Mencius and early Mohists, initiating a greater emphasis on the concept of Dao over nature. Shen Dao advocated a "Way of Heaven," though this concept appears to have been less developed in his era or received less focus compared to later texts. Hansen posited that Shen Dao and Han Fei aimed to discern the "'actual' course of history," with Han Fei concretizing Shen Dao's theories on circumstantial authority and the paradigm of adapting to changing times, introduced in its initial chapters under the Dao or "Way" of Laozi, and integrated with Shen Buhai's ideas in Chapter 5.
The Huangdi Sijing dedicates substantial sections to formulating practical guidelines directly applicable to politics, thereby attempting to integrate "concrete" political strategies with public policy theory. This work does not delve into the origins of society, human nature, or their interrelations; instead, it extracts broad insights from Chinese history. Characterizing humanity and politics as perpetually in flux, it conceptualizes rulership as a pragmatic art responsive to evolving events and personalities. While reflecting on historical failures and successes, it does not consider their circumstances or solutions to be precisely replicable. The text offers guidance rather than aspiring to develop "watertight techniques," which would align more closely with the ambitions of "great progenitors of Rationalism" such as Descartes or Francis Bacon.
The Han Feizi advocates the practice of *wu wei* (non-action) primarily for rulers, distinguishing itself from later or more spiritual forms of Daoism as a pragmatic state philosophy that rejects a 'permanent way of statecraft.' In contrast, the Huang-Lao boshu developed a more metaphysical naturalist perspective, promoting a "predetermined natural order" for humanity. The Han Feizi merely alludes to such a view, affirming the Dao as "the standard of right and wrong." Both the Later Mohists and Han Fei shifted their focus from an emphasis on heaven or nature towards a concept of man-made Sovereignty, a perspective corroborated by the Han Feizi's discussion of Shen Dao. Although Han Fei references Laozi, Graham observed that their trajectories moved in "parallel directions" in this regard; while Laozi sought adaptation to uncontrollable natural forces, the Han Feizi aimed to establish an "automatic" social order, employing analogies such as scales, compasses, and squares to illustrate "precise unimpugnable decisions."
Hu Shih, while not fully endorsing their methodologies, regarded Han Fei and Li Si as the preeminent statesmen in Chinese history. He characterized their approach as possessing a "brave spirit" that challenged those who "do not make the present into their teacher but learn from the past'," arguing that a political dictatorship was less formidable than one fixated on past traditions. Hu Shih also identified Xun Kuang, Han Fei, and Li Si as proponents of "progress through conscious human effort." He noted Li Si's significant contributions, including the abolition of the feudal system and the unification of the empire's legal framework, language, thought, and belief systems. Li Si further demonstrated this stance by submitting a memorial to the throne, condemning individuals who "refused to study the present and believed only in the ancients on whose authority they dared to criticize." This perspective aligns with a quotation from Xun Kuang:
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.
Sima Tan's characterization of the 'Dao school' emphasized timeliness, stating that "It (the dao or way) shifts with the times and changes in response to things." This perspective had previously been articulated by Han Fei and Xun Kuang. In contrast, Hong Kong professor Liu Xiaogan posits that the Zhuangzi and Laozi texts prioritize "according with nature" over timeliness. Sima Tan's description, however, more accurately aligns with his concept of Huang-Lao, where adherents theoretically defined the former in terms of the latter.
Unlike Xun Kuang, who is traditionally regarded as the teacher of Han Fei and Li Si, Han Fei did not contend that a propensity for disorder inherently indicated human malevolence or recalcitrance. Nevertheless, both the Han Feizi and Shen Dao texts incorporate argumentative references to 'sage kings'. The Han Feizi asserts that the differentiation between the ruler's interests and private interests originated with Cangjie, while governance by Fa (standards) is claimed to have existed since time immemorial. This demarcation between public and private spheres is considered a "key element" in the "enlightened governance" attributed to these ancient kings.
Doctrines of Names
In conjunction with Shang Yang's influence, the original meaning of Xing, denoting "performance," progressively shifted to signify punishment, thereby making Shen Buhai's doctrines appear more akin to Shang Yang's. The Xunzi, a text popular during the Han dynasty and predating the Han Feizi, likely introduced a distortive effect. Notably, a "Way of the Ruler" chapter within this work, similar to one in the Han Feizi, was unique in employing the term as "the names of punishments." Furthermore, Pei Yin's fifth-century commentaries, referencing Liu Xiang, indicate a renewed comprehension of Shen Buhai's ideas.
Despite viewing "shu" as a later terminological development, Creel's interpretation largely aligns with a traditional understanding of Shen Buhai. This understanding encompasses "shu" techniques such as manipulating power dynamics, maintaining an appearance of inactivity while acting decisively when necessary, concealing motivations, power, and intellect to prevent exploitation, appointing individuals based on merit, counteracting ministerial authority, and issuing only commands likely to be executed. While these broader techniques contribute to a perception of Shen Buhai's philosophy as rooted in deception, a theme also evident in the Han Feizi, his primary focus remained on administration.
Chapter 43, referencing Shen Buhai, deemed administrative standards or method (fa) essential, distinguishing it as "shu 术" (administrative) technique. "Shu" is defined here as involving the examination and assessment of ministerial capabilities, the appointment of candidates commensurate with their skills, holding ministerial accomplishments or "performance" (xing "forms") accountable to their initial proposals or "titles" (ming "names") as they pertain to their official roles, and the firm retention of control over life and death. Chapter 5 further connects this concept to the Way, whereas Xing-Ming, linked to the principles of reward and punishment, constitutes a core doctrine presented in Chapter 7 of the Han Feizi.
The concept of Xing-Ming, though later formalized in the *Han Feizi*, is retrospectively recognized as Shen Buhai's most significant administrative contribution, reflecting his practical approach. While arguably a central tenet within the *Han Feizi*, it is, at minimum, considered a "crucial element." Sinologist Goldin likened Xing-Ming to a "bid for contracts," enabling ministers to assume specific "titles" or offices. Illustrations of this doctrine are found in *Han Feizi* Chapters 5 ("Way of the Ruler") and 7 ("Two Handles"), where it is categorized under *shu* technique in Chapter 43.
Creel contended that Han Fei, originating from the late Han state, was likely acquainted with his predecessor Shen Buhai and the former prime minister Shang Yang of the neighboring Qin state. However, the Shang Yangian legal elements within the *Han Feizi* are arguably more theoretical. In contrast, Chapter 5 of the *Han Feizi*, introducing its interpretation of Xing-Ming administration, provides concrete practical recommendations rather than solely theoretical principles. Nevertheless, Han Fei probably viewed Xing-Ming's "impersonal governance" as an appropriate basis for legal reform, particularly once societal order was established, as articulated in the *Han Feizi*.
Remaining detached and passive, the ruler observes, allowing titles to self-designate and assignments to self-determine. Individuals with proposals generate their own titles, and those with assignments manifest their own performance. When performance aligns with the designated title, the ruler's direct intervention becomes unnecessary; he permits them to revert to their intrinsic state. This principle is articulated in Chapter 5, 主道 (The Way of the Ruler), as presented in the 2025 edition by Christoph Harbsmeier, Østergaard Petersen, and Yuri Pines.
Chapter 7 advocates for the ruler's exclusive control over the "Two Handles" of reward and punishment to avert usurpation, dispensing these based on the fulfillment of bureaucratic duties. The most comprehensive application of these principles is linked to *fa* (standards) as self-proposed commitments by ministers. In earlier academic discourse, this perspective would challenge previous, predominantly legal positivist interpretations of the work, suggesting an evolution from a non-penal practice that did not necessitate formal law.
To effectively suppress treachery, a sovereign must meticulously evaluate and align performance (the *xing* 形, or form) with the designated title (the *ming* 名, or name). The concepts of performance and title delineate the distinction between a minister's proposal (言, speech) and the subsequent task. The minister presents a proposal; the ruler then assigns the task in accordance with this proposal, and the minister's merit is determined exclusively by the execution of that task. This is from *Han Feizi* Chapter 7, as cited by Chen Qiyou, 2000.
Sima Qian's incorporation of Shang Yang suggests his familiarity with a similar doctrine; although direct evidence of Shang Yang's study under Shen Buhai is absent, the *Book of Lord Shang* notably contains "doctrines of names."
When a sage formulates a law, it must be rendered clear and readily comprehensible. With correct "names" (*ming*; words), both the unlearned and the erudite can grasp their meaning. This excerpt is from *Book of Lord Shang*, Chapter 26: 故聖人為法，必使之明白易知，名正，愚知徧能知之.
Sima Qian's *Shiji* records the First Emperor's proclamation of Xing-Ming's implementation. While it is debatable whether Xing-Ming constituted an integrated component of a legal system during Shen Buhai's era, it arguably holds such a position within Sima Qian's conceptualization of the Qin empire.
"The Qin (or 'great') sage surveys his state. Initially, he established Xing-Ming; he revealed and presented ancient statutes, commenced the standardization of laws and models, and meticulously differentiated duties and tasks to institute constancy and permanence." This passage, 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, is attributed to Li Si in Sima Qian's *Shiji*, Chapter 63.
Xing-Ming
Frequently referenced in conjunction with the *Han Feizi*, Sima Qian (c. 145–c. 86 BCE) categorizes Shen Buhai, Han Fei, and Shang Yang under the doctrine of Xing-Ming, which translates to "form" and "name." Sima Qian indicates that Shen Buhai and Han Fei favored this doctrine, albeit with roots in Huang-Lao or "Yellow Emperor Daoism." Liu Xiang (77–6 BCE), while classifying them within the Fa school, nonetheless regarded Shen Buhai's doctrine as Xing-Ming, characterized by holding outcomes accountable to claims. Although later associated with Shang Yang, Han Fei explicitly identifies Shen Buhai as the originator of his Xing-Ming doctrine.
The term "Xing" exemplifies a model or standard (fa), with its origins prominently traced to Zhou texts that referenced King Wen of Zhou as an exemplary figure. Zichan's application of the term in his penal reforms also maintained this reference to models. Nevertheless, the *Han Feizi* asserts that Shen Buhai employed the earlier, more prevalent philosophical equivalent, the Mohist "ming-shi" (name and reality). This suggests its probable genesis in the name and reality discourses of the Later Mohists (or "Neo-Mohists") and the School of Names (Xingmingjia). Prior to this, its conceptual lineage likely extends to the Confucian rectification of names, or *cheng ming*, a term still present in Shen Buhai's extant fragments, despite its later contrast in the *Han Feizi*.
Liu Xiang (Pei Yin) documented Shen Buhai's treatise as advocating for Method over punishment. As an early proponent of bureaucratic principles, Shen Buhai's contribution lay less in advanced theoretical development and more in his concentrated focus on bureaucratic structures. While not the sole instance, Chapter 43 of the *Han Feizi* offers a fundamental elucidation of Method (Technique, *fa-shu*), stating: "Method involves conferring office commensurate with a candidate's abilities; holding achievements (Xing forms) accountable to claims (Ming names); and scrutinizing the competence of assembled ministers." Despite its inherent meritocratic objective and potential for merit-based ministerial selection, Han Fei's presentation suggests that *Shu*'s core principle was primarily *Xing-Ming* as accountability.
The *Han Feizi*'s *Xing-Ming* methodology likely represented the most intricate and 'mechanically' complex example of its type during that era. While Xun Kuang frequently proposed more specific criteria for official appointments, the *Han Feizi*'s methods are characterized by their considerable detail. In this context, the theories of Xun Kuang and the Mohists from the late Warring States period remained significantly more generalized. Accountability, as articulated in the *Han Feizi* towards the close of the Warring States period, demonstrates a considerably more advanced development compared to the concepts presented by Shen Buhai and earlier Confucians. By holding ministers responsible for their proposals, actions, and performance, the *Han Feizi* ultimately assigned specific roles to individual ministers (e.g., "Steward of Cloaks" in Chapter 7), thereby establishing explicit duties for them.
While Shen Buhai's concepts primarily focused on aligning proposals with corresponding duties, the later *Guanzi* presents an instance that A.C. Graham identified as more closely approximating Han Fei's doctrine, ultimately emphasizing the congruence between office titles and their associated responsibilities.
Scrutinizing names entails examining an object based on its name and, conversely, establishing the name according to the object. Name and object are mutually generative, and in their reversal, they embody each other's *ch'ing* ("the essential quality without which the object cannot conform to the name"). When name and object align, order prevails; otherwise, disorder ensues. (Graham, *Guanzi* Ch55)
According to the *Shiji*, the doctrines of *Xing-Ming* were largely absent in the early Han period, save for their appearance in the Mawangdui silk texts. However, the practice resurfaced under the Daoist Emperor Wen of Han and his trusted advisors, characterized by a "cautious, unobtrusive, and firm" approach, which more closely resembled Shen Buhai's philosophy than Han Fei's. Subsequently attributed to Shen Buhai, the term evolved to designate secretaries responsible for maintaining records of penal decisions during the Han dynasty. Originating with an early meaning of form, model, or regulation, and appearing less frequently in Warring States texts, the original semantic nuance of *Xing* (刑) progressively diminished, becoming conflated with punishment.
During the later Han period, scholars less informed than Liu Xiang frequently failed to distinguish between the philosophies of Shen Buhai and Shang Yang. Initially associated with Shen Buhai and figures from the School of Names as Method, *Xing-Ming* was occasionally employed during the Han dynasty to denote a synthesis of Shang Yang's and Han Fei's ideas. Notwithstanding its potential meritocratic contributions to the establishment of the Imperial Examination system, the precise meaning of *Xing* eventually became obscured and lost through its conflation with punishment (*Xing* 刑) by the Western Qin period, and potentially as early as the third-century Eastern Han. Consequently, those likely unable to accurately interpret the term were later designated "the school of punishments" following the collapse of the Han dynasty. Jin Zhuo subsequently interpreted *Xing-Ming* as a composite concept, disaggregating it by classifying the *Xingmingjia* (School of Forms and Names) as the *Mingjia* (School of Names), and those already categorized as *Fajia* (Legalists) as the *Xingjia* (School of Punishments).
Xing-Ming (Daoism)
The *Han Feizi* informally links its concept of Xing-Ming to Laozi, yet specifically attributes its origins to Shen Buhai. This concept likely evolved from the name and reality discussions among the Later Mohists, the Xingming school of forms and names, and the Confucian rectification of names, terms that Shen Buhai continued to employ despite the *Han Feizi*'s contrasting perspective. Given that *The Book of Lord Shang* from the Qin period only clearly converged with central Chinese tradition through the *Han Feizi*, a form of Huang-Lao "Daoism," as described by Sima Qian, was theoretically poised to become a dominant ideology among Chinese officials by the Qin dynasty.
Sima Qian associates Shen Buhai with Huang-Lao Daoism, stating that "Shenzi (Master Shen) was rooted in Huang-Lao (Daoism) and prioritized xingming." While Sima Tan critiqued stringent administrative methods, advocating for his own interpretation of Daoism, Han Fei's development of a mechanically strict Xing-Ming system did not occur until the late Warring States period. Sima Tan, using less technical language, explicitly incorporated Xing-Ming into his Daoist school (Daojia).
Sima Tan observed: "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'."
In contrast to Laozi, Han Fei and the Qin school diverged from a Huang-Lao Daoist interpretation of Xing-Ming, which centered on a Way of Heaven derived from an inherent rationality of laws. Their primary concern was law as an instrument of control, rather than its alignment with a celestial Way. Han Fei specifically articulated a "Way of the Ruler" or "Sovereign." Shen Dao, the *Huangdi Sijing*, and Laozi, however, maintained a more conceptually "naturalist" understanding of the Way of Heaven. Shen Buhai's doctrine, along with the *Huainanzi* which it likely influenced, continued to advocate for "not interfering with the natural tendency of names and affairs to manage themselves."
Given a Huang-Lao tradition that increasingly emphasized *fa* (standards), Sima Qian might have grouped Laozi and Zhuangzi with Shen Buhai and Han Fei because the latter two "prioritized xingming," a concept prominently featured in recovered texts. The *Sijing* regarded the alignment of realities (Xing) with speech and the "names" of things (ming) as crucial for "implementing the Way of Heaven," both administratively and in broader contexts. Although the *Han Feizi*'s "Way of the Ruler" may not explicitly highlight Yin Yang concepts, the *Huangdi Sijing* does. By analyzing Yin and Yang to achieve dependable outcomes, it similarly correlates "names" and "realities" (*shi*) as a pragmatic method for appointing, overseeing, and evaluating ministers.
Despite the *Zhuangzi*'s general advocacy for self-cultivation, which "dramatically" diverges from earlier chapters, Chapter 13, "Way of Heaven," within the Outer *Zhuangzi*, assigns a secondary role to Xing-Ming administrative principles reminiscent of Shen Buhai's. This chapter prioritizes *wu wei*, *dao*, *de*, benevolence, appointment and investigation, and finally reward and punishment. A.C. Graham interpreted this hierarchical structure as underscoring the ruler's diminished activity through *wu wei*, primarily critiquing those who inverted these priorities. This perspective, not entirely "Daoist" in its later understanding, is generally considered to reflect early Huang-Lao or "syncretist" thought.
The *Zhushu* section of the *Huainanzi*, translated by Goldin as "Taking Shu as One's Ruler" or "Esteeming Technique," articulates naturalistic concepts similar to those of Shen Buhai. This aligns with Liu Xiang's recollection of Shen Buhai's philosophy, which advocated "to follow and comply, and delegate responsibilities to one's subordinates."
Shen Buhai, in "The Great Body," stated: "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."
The *Huainanzi*'s "Zhushu" asserts: "Each name names itself, each category categorizes itself. Things are so of themselves; [the ruler] lets nothing emerge from himself."
The Way of the Ruler
Although *Han Feizi* incorporates legal concepts, Laozi's interpretation of *fa* typically denotes general standards or models. Both Laozi and Zhuangzi generally eschewed, and even resisted, the notion of law, positing that linguistic expressions and nomenclature were inadequate for articulating "the Way." Laozi famously asserted, "The name that can be named is not the constant name." Nevertheless, A.C. Graham interprets this not as a dismissal of language's utility, but rather as an acknowledgment of its inherent limitations as a descriptive tool. The text subsequently addresses these inherent deficiencies through the juxtaposition of antithetical concepts.
The first chapter of *Laozi* states:Make freedom from desire your constant norm; thereby you will see what is subtle (妙)
Constantly with desire, thereby observe the boundaries (徼 jiao literally "border", "outer fringe" James Legge.).
The commentaries on *Laozi* found within *Han Feizi* constitute a critical analysis. Han Fei conceptualized "names" as ministerial proposals or official titles, thereby enabling Shen Buhai's notion of "names" to serve as a critique of Laozi, at least within the framework of *Han Feizi*. Chapter 5 of *Han Feizi*, titled *Zhudao* (道主) or "Way of the Ruler," elaborates on Laozi's philosophy, echoing Shen Buhai's style by introducing the concept of names "rectifying themselves." This involves correlating *Ming* (names or proposals) with *Xing* (forms or outcomes), where the results function as a standard (*fa*) for evaluating claims, thereby establishing bureaucratic mechanisms of counterbalancing processes. Although Sima Qian did not explicitly list this chapter, his perception of Han Fei's philosophical origins in Huang-Lao thought may stem from Chapter 5's articulation of the Way, which encompasses the Way as a standard and alludes to metaphysical elements.
Chapter 5, as translated by W. K. Liao, articulates:Dao is the beginning of the myriad things, the standard of right and wrong. That being so, the intelligent ruler, by holding to the beginning, knows the source of everything, and, by keeping to the standard, knows the origin of good and evil. By virtue of resting empty and reposed, he waits for the course of nature to enforce itself so that all names will be defined of themselves and all affairs will be settled of themselves. Empty, he knows the essence of fullness: reposed, he becomes the corrector of motion. Who utters a word creates himself a name; who has an affair creates himself a form. Compare forms and names (Xing-Ming) and see if they are identical. Then the ruler will find nothing to worry about as everything is reduced to its reality.
While chapters five or eight of *Han Feizi* may not exhibit the same academic rigor as subsequent commentaries in elucidating the *Daodejing*'s precise meaning, their appropriation of Laozi's ideas for distinct objectives parallels other early interpretations, such as the *Xiang'er*. In contrast to *Laozi*, *Han Feizi*'s "Way of the Ruler" employs considerably less ambiguous language, advocating for "the ruler's quiescence," "practical recommendations," and the effective management of ministers, rather than a purely Daoist lifestyle or metaphysical discourse. Nevertheless, it "affirms the primacy of the *dao*," echoing a passage from *Laozi* that posits the Way as the world's origin. This perspective subsequently evokes Shen Buhai's philosophy, wherein the ruler adheres to the 'natural order' or Way (*Dao*), responding to circumstances rather than initiating actions, embodying the principle of *wu wei*.
From a "strictly practical" standpoint, figures such as Shen Buhai, Shen Dao, or Han Fei can be broadly considered to have originated from a Daoistic 'way of thought,' particularly regarding governmental models or standards (*fa*) "derived from Dao." Han Fei, however, ultimately replaced these standards with codified law. While Laozi, Zhuangzi, Shen Buhai, and Sima Qian generally did not champion formal laws (*fa*), the rediscovered *Huangdi Sijing* from the Mawangdui Silk Texts distinctly emphasizes standards (*fa*) as encompassing legal principles. The *Jingfa* text, beginning with the assertion that the Dao generates standards, presents arguments more akin to natural law. Theoretically, "Huang-Lao" thought would diverge by striving to align law more closely with the Way.
The preferred 'inactive' ruler, as conceptualized by Shen Buhai, Han Fei, and Sima Tan, engages an assembly of ministers, systematically correlating *Ming* ("names," or verbal claims) such as job proposals with the *Xing* ("forms," "shapes," or actual outcomes) they manifest. Early instances of this principle are evident in Shen Buhai's *Shenzi*. Furthermore, several Mawangdui silk texts exhibit parallels with Han Fei's Chapter 5 discourse on Xing-Ming and its "brilliant (or intelligent) ruler," a resemblance also found in other eclectic Huang-Lao works, including the *Guanzi*, *Huainanzi*, and Sima Qian's *Shiji*.
The sage ruler exhibits no partiality, neither favoring nor disfavoring based on aesthetic qualities, nor reacting with pleasure or anger to disciplinary measures or incentives. Instead, such a ruler allows entities to define themselves and categories to self-organize. Affairs unfold intrinsically, free from personal intervention. Huainanzi
Eradicating Punishments
During the pre-unification era, Qin legal statutes diverged considerably from the principles articulated in the Book of Lord Shang (Shangjunshu). While maintaining Shang Yang's foundational reforms, the Qin regime abandoned his anti-Confucian stance, his stringent and severe penal policies, and ultimately his strong emphasis on agricultural development. Following Shang Yang's era, King Huiwen of Qin is documented as having granted clemency in a murder case, a decision influenced by Confucian ethical principles. Sima Qian portrays Qin Shi Huang as a proponent of law and order, who lauded himself as a "sage ruler of benevolence and righteousness... who cares for and pities the common people." A significant administrative reform within the primarily administrative Qin dynasty focused on regulating ministerial power, establishing departmental divisions that precluded arbitrary punishment.
Translator Yuri Pines posits that the final chapter (26) of the Shangjunshu reflects the administrative practices prevalent during the late pre-imperial and Imperial Qin dynasty, aligning with contemporary understanding of Qin governance. Despite being presented as an interview with Shang Yang, its recommendations are considered too sophisticated for his historical period. This chapter proposes the establishment of offices staffed by rigorously trained legal experts at central, provincial, and local levels, whose mandate would be to address all inquiries from both the populace and officials. To maintain simplicity for minor officials, responses would be strictly controlled through a double-entry registration system: one copy provided to the inquirer and the other archived in sealed records for future retrieval. All legal cases would subsequently be adjudicated in accordance with these previously issued responses.
Although primarily designed to disseminate the sovereign's law and governance rather than to safeguard citizens' rights in a modern sense, this system necessitated public cooperation. The protection of individuals from ministerial abuse gained precedence over their punishment. Envisioned as universally beneficial, in an endeavor to achieve the "blessed eradication of punishments through punishments," clear laws were promulgated, empowering the populace to challenge ministers who misused statutes. Ministers found abusing statutes would face penalties commensurate with the offense, and archival corruption by legal experts could incur penalties up to capital punishment. Han Fei advanced similar recommendations, yet, in comparison to the later sections of the Shangjunshu, he may not have fully developed the concept or concern for legal mechanisms designed to protect citizens from bureaucrats, focusing instead on achieving societal order through the ruler's administrative authority.
If, as historical accounts suggest, at least a portion of the Han Feizi dates to the late Warring States period, then the Shangjunshu could have been in circulation just prior to unification. The Han Feizi's adoption of elements from the Shangjunshu might create the misleading impression of a continuous application of Shang Yang's severe older punishments, which could be erroneously projected backward in time. Even if the Shangjunshu merely hints that the necessity for punishment would eventually diminish, the Qin dynasty nevertheless abandoned Shang Yang's most severe penal practices. The Book of Lord Shang itself does not represent a monolithic ideology but rather demonstrates significant evolution throughout its development. As its initial reference, the Han Feizi recalls an earlier Chapter 4, stating:
Gongsun Yang stated: "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'."
Contrary to common assumptions derived from contemporary texts, the Qin dynasty "were not extraordinarily severe for their time" and exhibited continuity with the early Han dynasty, culminating in the abolition of mutilating punishments in 167 BCE. Among severe penalties, Qin-era mutilating punishments encompassed tattooing, nose cutting, and foot cutting; however, references to the latter two are infrequent and diminished over time. For severe offenses, forced labor was the predominant penalty. Following sentencing, both Qin and early Han dynasties frequently commuted or redeemed mutilating punishments, and even death sentences, in exchange for fines, labor, or the conferral of one to several aristocratic ranks. Based on the gravity of the offense and specific circumstances, judicial decisions could bypass mutilating punishments entirely, directly imposing a mutually agreeable labor sentence, which might subsequently be pardoned in favor of military service in border regions.
Although not the most prevalent forms of punishment, the Qin's mutilating penalties likely served, in part, to generate labor for agriculture, husbandry, workshops, and wall construction. As a substitute for mutilation in less severe but still heavy punishments, forced labor, ranging from one to five years, emerged as the standard severe penalty in early Imperial China, primarily involving the construction of roads and canals, with only a minority assigned to Great Wall construction. Within the broader context of colonization, the most frequent severe punishment evolved into expulsion to newly established colonies, with exile itself being regarded as a significant penalty. The Han dynasty adopted a similar approach, relocating criminals to frontier regions for military service; Emperor Wu and subsequent emperors notably conscripted individuals condemned to death into expeditionary forces. While Dong Zhongshu critiqued the Qin for perceived leniency towards criminals, the practice of exile as a severe punishment in ancient China predates this period, extending back to at least the Spring and Autumn era.
Han-era writer Dong Zhongshu (179–104 BCE) regarded Qin officials and taxation as stringent, yet he did not similarly characterize their punishments; indeed, Dong critiqued the Qin system for its perceived inadequacy in penalizing offenders. The concept of redemption, aiming to minimize punitive measures and ensure the proper application of the rectification of names, is discernible in the Analects of Confucius.
Han Feizi
According to Han Fei, the established power structure cannot accommodate an autonomous ministerial exercise of reward and punishment. Han Fei primarily focused on addressing ministerial transgressions. A central argument presented in Chapter 7, "The Two Handles," of the Han Feizi, advocating for standardized punishment, posits that the delegation of reward and punishment to ministers resulted in the erosion of state power and the collapse of polities during his time. Consequently, these powers should be monopolized, employing severe penalties to eliminate ministerial infringements and, by extension, the need for further punishment. This monopolization is central to Han Fei's application of *fa* (laws and methods), designed to preclude usurpation.
Primarily focused on ministerial conduct, Han Fei did not perceive the populace as an adversary, unlike the perspective found in earlier sections of the Book of Lord Shang. The Han Feizi occasionally articulates concepts of public welfare. The principle of "preventing the strong from exploiting the weak" would not only benefit the sage ruler, as addressed by Han Fei, but also protect vulnerable groups such as the elderly and orphans. Although Han Fei contended that a benevolent government that refrains from punishment would undermine legal order and foster confusion, he simultaneously argued that a violent and tyrannical ruler would engender an irrational government, leading to conflict and rebellion. Consequently, the Han Feizi also expresses opposition to corvée labor, asserting that such hardship would drive the populace towards influential ministers, thereby undermining the authority of the ruler and the stability of the state.
Shen Dao, identified as the initial figure in Han Fei's later-chapter triad, refrained from specifying types of punishments, as this was not central to his philosophy. Within Shen Dao's conceptual framework, the rationale was that personal decisions regarding punishments would excessively involve the ruler, thereby exposing him to public resentment. Instead, the ruler ought to determine punishments based on *fa* (legal standards). Similarly, Han Fei did not propose specific categories of punishments and appeared unconcerned with punishment as an act of retribution per se. His primary concern was their efficacy in achieving their intended purpose, which was ultimately to eliminate the need for further punishments.
While "benevolence and righteousness" might be considered mere rhetorical flourishes, other methods could potentially be integrated. Han Fei, in his reflections on Shang Yang, accorded comparable significance to rewards as a means of motivating individuals and achieving favorable outcomes. For Han Fei, punishment served a subordinate role to the strategic control of ministers through administrative techniques. Although such techniques might have encompassed espionage during his era, they predominantly involved formal written agreements.
Justice
The *Book of Lord Shang*, particularly due to its emphasis on a fundamental division between the populace and the state, has been characterized as anti-populist, containing provocative assertions such as the notion that a weak populace contributes to a strong military. Nevertheless, these specific statements are confined to a limited number of chapters, and the text also expresses opposition to ministerial misconduct. Michael Loewe maintained that these laws were fundamentally designed to ensure societal peace and order. Their severity during Shang Yang's period was primarily intended to deter future transgressions.
Sima Qian contended that the Qin dynasty, despite its reliance on stringent laws, was nonetheless insufficiently rigorous to ensure consistently equitable application, implying that these laws did not invariably dispense justice as it was conventionally understood. From a contemporary viewpoint, it is "impossible" to dispute at least the "'basic' justice inherent in Qin legal statutes." By prioritizing explicit protocols over the arbitrary decisions of individual ministers and mandating forensic examinations, these laws, for an ancient society, are ultimately characterized more by their fairness than by their perceived cruelty.
In instances of conflicting evidence, officials were permitted to resort to beatings as a final measure; however, such actions required documentation, comparison with other evidence, and could not result in punishment without a confession. Given the integrated nature of administration and judiciary in ancient societies, the Qin developed the concept of the judge-magistrate functioning as a detective. This archetype subsequently appeared in early Han dynasty theater, portraying judges as investigators dedicated to uncovering truth as a path to justice.
While Han Fei is often associated with the concept of justice in contemporary discourse, he fundamentally disagreed with the early Confucian notion that ministers should be exempt from penal statutes. Demonstrating at least an indirect concern for the populace, the *Han Feizi* unequivocally asserts that "blatant manipulation and subversion of law to the detriment of the state and ruler should never be tolerated":
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.
Legacy
Chapters 43 and 40 of the *Han Feizi* contributed to an early modern analytical perspective that categorized Shen Buhai as primarily concerned with *Shu* (technique), Shen Dao with *Shi* (power), and Shang Yang with *fa* (law), often uncritically assuming the *Han Feizi*'s framework superseded other interpretations. However, extant fragments attributed to Shen Dao indicate a more pronounced emphasis on *fa* in his own philosophy.
Scholars and commentators have frequently identified Legalism as an ideological influence on the contemporary governance of the People's Republic of China, particularly during the general secretaryship of Xi Jinping. Academic Sam Crane has characterized the modern Chinese state as exhibiting "Confucianism on the outside, Legalist on the inside."
Deng Xiaoping's well-known aphorism, "a cat is a good cat if it can catch rats, no matter it is a white or a black cat," has drawn comparisons to principles articulated in the *Han Feizi*.
References
Sources
- The Han Feizi
- Book of Lord Shang