Han Feizi

Han Feizi

A late 19th century edition of the Hanfeizi by Hongwen Book Company
Author	Han Fei
Original title	韩非子
Language	Chinese
Genre	Chinese classics
Publication date	3rd century BCE
Publication place	China

Han Feizi
'Hanfeizi' in seal script (top), Traditional (middle), and Simplified (bottom) forms
Traditional Chinese	韓非子
Simplified Chinese	韩非子
Literal meaning	"[The Writings of] Master Han Fei"
Transcriptions Standard Mandarin Hanyu Pinyin Hán Fēi zǐ Bopomofo ㄏㄢˊ ㄈㄟ ㄗˇ Gwoyeu Romatzyh Harn Feitzyy Wade–Giles Han2 Fei1 tzŭ3 IPA [xǎn féɪ.tsɨ̀] Yue: Cantonese Yale Romanization Hòhn Fēi-jí Jyutping Hon4 Fei1-zi2 IPA [hɔn˩ fej˥.tsi˧˥] Southern Min Hokkien POJ Hân Hui-chú Tâi-lô Hân Hui-tsú Middle Chinese Middle Chinese ɦan pi.tzí Old Chinese Baxter–Sagart (2014) *[g]ˤar pəj.tsəʔ

The Han Feizi (simplified Chinese: 韩非子; traditional Chinese: 韓非子; pinyin: Hánfēizi; lit. 'Book of Master Han Fei') is an ancient Chinese text attributed to the Legalist political philosopher Han Fei. It comprises a selection of essays in the Legalist tradition, elucidating theories of state power, and synthesizing the methodologies of his predecessors. Its 55 chapters, most of which date to the Warring States period mid-3rd century BCE, are the only such text to survive fully intact. The Han Feizi is believed to contain the first commentaries on the Dao De Jing. Traditionally associated with the Qin dynasty, succeeding emperors and reformers were still influenced by Shen Buhai and the Han Feizi, with Shang Yang's current again coming to prominence in the time of Emperor Wu.

Often considered the "culminating" or "greatest" Legalist texts, Han Fei was dubbed by A. C. Graham amongst as the "great synthesizer" of 'Legalism'". Sun Tzu's The Art of War incorporates both a Daoist philosophy of inaction and impartiality, and a 'Legalist' system of punishment and rewards, recalling Han Fei's use of the concepts of power and technique.

Among the most important philosophical classics in ancient China, it touches on administration, diplomacy, war and economics, and is also valuable for its abundance of anecdotes about pre-Qin China. Though differing considerably in style, the coherency of the essays lend themselves to the possibility that much was written by Han Fei himself, and are generally considered more philosophically engaging than the Book of Lord Shang. Zhuge Liang is said to have attached great importance to the Han Feizi, as well as to Han Fei's predecessor Shen Buhai.

Title and transmission

The Han Feizi was originally simply named the Hanzi (Master Han). The title was expanded to Han Feizi during the Tang Dynasty, possibly to avoid confusion with the Confucian poet Han Yu. Not including critical edition commentary, it appears to have always been considered properly the same length of 55 p'ien since the time of its listing in the Hanshu's catalogue. A few sources list it as one p'ien longer, but was likely just copyist error. There are slightly shorter editions, but these did not have serious losses, and went out of print inside China after it was restored to full length.

Two of the text's Laozi commentaries, 20-21, have generally been considered addendums due to "considerable ideological, lexical, and stylistic differences". This says nothing as to the date of their authorship or addition however, with no chapter demonstrating knowledge of Qin unification.

Introduction

Pages from a printed edition of Han Feizi from the Ming dynasty

Han Fei describes an interest-driven human nature together with the political methodologies to work with it in the interest of the state and Sovereign, namely, engaging in passive observation, and the systematic use of fa (法; fǎ; 'law'', ''measurement') to maintain leadership and manage human resources, its use to increase welfare, and its relation with justice.

Rather than rely too much on worthies, who might not be trustworthy, Han Fei binds their programs to systematic reward and penalty (the 'two handles'), fishing the subjects of the state by feeding them with interests. That being done, the ruler minimizes his own input, intending to make no judgement apart from observances of the facts. Like Shang Yang and other fa philosophers, he admonishes the ruler not to abandon fa for any other means, considering it a more practical means for the administration of both a large territory and personnel near at hand.

Han Fei's philosophy proceeds from the regicide of his era. Sinologist Goldin writes: "Most of what appears in the Han Feizi deals with the ruler's relations with his ministers, [who] were regarded as the party most likely, in practice, to cause him harm." Han Fei quotes the Springs and Autumns of Tao Zuo: "'Less than half of all rulers die of illness.' If the ruler of men is unaware of this, disorders will be manifold and unrestrained. Thus it is said: If those who benefit from a lord's death are many, the ruler will be imperiled.".

Late pre-Han dating

Sima Qian presents Han Fei as a late Warring states period figure. Because Sima Qian only mentions a few chapters, it is not possible to outright preclude a later Han dynasty origin for the entire work, but it does not mention any Han dynasty events, or avoid any Han dynasty taboos that would prohibit a late Warring States dating. Alongside Zheng Liangshu and Jiang Chongyue, Lundahl's scholarship was notable in collecting and reviewing Chinese scholarship, examining the authorship and dating of the Han Feizi's chapters. His work has still been recalled modernly.

Except as compilations, some chapters would have to be at least as late as the late Warring States period. Chapters 6 and 19 recall the fall of several late Warring states period states. Chapter 6's memorial on Having Regulations recalls the fall of Wey in 243bce. Chapter 19's Taking Measures recalls Qin's conquest of Ye from the Zhao, dated to 236bce. Seemingly written from the context of the late Han state, the chapter could still conceivably have preceded Han's fall in 230bce, or that of either Zhao or Wei if they had yet only ceded territory.

Putting aside the traditional claim of Xun Kuang as a teacher of Han Fei, the Xunzi is still a useful demarcation. (Parts of) the Han Feizi adapt administrative ideas from Shen Buhai, a contemporary of Shang Yang. While much earlier figures, the Han Feizi's particular "Xing-Ming" adaptation of Shen Buhai likely does post-date the Xunzi, with Shen Buhai, Xunzi and then Han Feizi being successively more technically complex.

The Han Feizi is Shang Yang's first reference outside Qin, with the Book of Lord Shang possibly going into broad circulation late in the period based on commentaries from the Han Feizi itself. The Xunzi references and critiques a variety of figures, including Shen Buhai and Shen Dao, but not Shang Yang. The Zhuangzi is not familiar with a Legalist school either.

Laozi commentaries ch.20-21

The Han Feizi's chapters five or eight are not as academic as later Laozi commentaries in trying to illustrate the Daodejing's actual meaning, using Laozi to illustrate its own ideas, similar to other early commentaries like the Xiang'er. Translator W.K. Liao (1939) did consider the Han Feizi's Chapter 20 "Commentaries on Lao Tzŭ's Teachings" academically thorough. As with Yuri Pines modernly, Lundahl still considered them addendums written by a different author.

Containing the earliest commentaries on the Tao te Ching (Laozi), early Chinese scholarship agreed with a late dating for the Han Feizi's Laozi commentaries Ch.20-21. However, later Chinese scholarship questioned a late dating with the discovery of the Mawangdui silk texts, following Sima Qian's assertion that Han Fei was based in Huang-Lao (Daoism). Regardless, the text's Laozi content would most likely have been added in a period when the editors thought rulers would have been interested in commentaries on Laozi. With Chapter 5 also syncretizing Laozi and Shen Buhai, this can include the period of its writing and inclusion.

Although not necessarily the "original" Tao te Ching, the Han Feizi is probably reading from an early, less metaphysical version, like that of the Mawangdui. As more idealist works, the commentaries themselves can even be argued as earlier. Sinologists Hansen, Tang Junyi and A.C. Graham related the commentaries as developing out of the late Warring States Guanzi, but as including its earlier incorporated Neiye. While it would not suggest they were written by the Han Fei of Sima Qian, Lundalh argued they bare more resemblance to the earlier Mencius than late Warring States Xun Kuang or other parts of the Han Feizi, placing less emphasis on ceremony than the "innermost heart".

Pre-Xunzi thinking

Han Fei was traditionally said to be taught by the Confucian Xun Kuang (Xunzi or master Xun), but distancing himself from Confucianism. If Han Fei comes right after Xunzi, but doesn't rely on him, then he would still mostly develop earlier pre-Xunzi thinking, which he does.

Both the Han Feizi and Lushi Chunqiu discuss Shen Dao, but the Han Feizi's argument has more in common with the earlier thinker. It lacks an ideological basis for more complex, late Warring States hierarchies, which the Lushi Chunqiu subsequently develops. Shen Dao wasn't very ideological either; he suggests power as a means to order or chaos. In this case, the Lushi Chunqiu has more in common with Xun Kuang, while the Han Feizi has more in common with the earlier Shen Dao.

As argued by Tao Jiang, simply interpreting "Han Fei" as a late student of Xun Kuang, as according to Sima Qian, can "distort the nature of the Han Feizi’s approach to politics, as well as misidentify (his) sources of inspiration." Although Xun Kuang views human nature as "bad", he has a more moral focus, while the Han Feizi's view of human nature as "driven by cravings for wealth and recognition" is "much more aligned with pre-Xunzi thinkers". Sima Qian also relates Han Fei with Laozi, considering Han Fei concerned with such things as "methods and techniques of governance."

Lushi Chunqiu

Although considering Shen Dao's influence clear, Eirik Lang Harris (2016) of the Shenzi fragments did not consider it discernible whether the Lushi Chunqiu's Shen Dao influence was adapted directly from Shen Dao, or based on writings filtered through secondary scholars, as including what is now Chapter 40 of the Han Feizi. But he considered the latter likely. If not including a basis in what is now chapter 40 itself, the Lushi Chunqiu otherwise makes it more likely that at least some of its argumentation predates them.

Shen Dao saw governing the state as based in controlling the allotment of goods, preventing contention between people seeking them. Neither the Confucians, Shen Dao or Han Fei view the ruler's positional power as sufficient to determine good or ill. In principle, the Lushu Chunqiu justifies an entire hierarchy for it. Harris takes the Lushi Chunqiu's moral adaptation as resonating more with its own late Xun Kuang era. It still adapts Shen Dao's ideas of positional power as preventing chaos, but as justifying more complex hierarchy together with a more moral justification using them to aid the impoverished.

The Han Feizi doesn't simply advance Shen Dao either, and can still be considered late. But it is more closely aligned with Shen Dai's earlier Warring States ideas in the sense of "amoral" political theory. It defends Shen Dao's "adapting to circumstances" from earlier Confucianism, which is taken as arguing against positional power as a tool for good or ill when used by good or bad actors. Han Fei maintains it is as insufficient to cause or solve good or ill, ruin and disaster, which in some cases is beyond human control. Positional power more simply aids the ruler in maintaining his position and order. At most, it will enable the government's adaptation to circumstances, while at worst the ruler doesn't cause ruin by himself.

Confucian comparison

Some authors of the Han Feizi took a negative view of Confucianism. Chapter 19 for criticizes filial piety as a primary value, since a ruler's mother can still murder him. Yuri Pines believed that the Han Feizi criticized the political limitations of filial piety, but did not believe the Han Fei completely rejected values like filial piety and loyalty, generally accepting their status as primary values.

Chapter 20 goes on to use filial piety and loyalty in its own argument, saying that other people are just not properly investing them. Pairing monarchic and parental authority, it says that dynastic founders who violated them, betraying previous rulers or ceding the throne to worthier candidates, should be censured as detrimental to monarchism. Taken as values "affirmed by all under heaven", while not exclusively Confucian, moral social order and monarchism are based on otherwise Confucian values of "filiality, fraternity, and loyalty" with the addition of compliance.

As compared with the Han Feizi, much of the early Legalist Book of Lord Shang is more focused on state power in relation to the general populace, emphasizing agriculture and war. It only really starts to develop ideas of managing ministers later in the work. A notable example, Chapter 24's "Interdicts and Encouragements", begins to develop ideas on power similar to Shen Dao, but is very late in the work and also of likely later dating than its earlier chapters.

The work has little interest in Confucians as scholars or philosophers. However, at least compared with the Book of Lord Shang's stratocracy, the Han Feizi can arguably be compared more with Confucianism, even if it incorporates reward and punishment. Although its much later administrative mechanisms are more complex, the Han Feizi has a bureaucratic system of names (roles) that can still be compared with the much earlier Confucian rectification of names, and is more focused on forbidding and encouraging ministers, who may well be Confucians themselves.

Although the Han Feizi advocates law, it criticizes Shang Yang in much the same way that the Confucians critique law. Holding that laws cannot practice themselves, it blames Shang Yang for too much reliance on law. Substituting the Confucian argument for virtuous worthies with administrative methods, some originating in Shen Buhai, the Han Feizi says of Shang Yang's Qin state: "Although the laws were rigorously implemented by the officials, the ruler at the apex lacked methods."

Spear-shield paradox

Chapter 36 is credited as the origin of the Chinese word for contradiction (Chinese: 矛盾; pinyin: máodùn; lit. 'spear-shield'), illustrating the irresistible force paradox:

Among the Chu, there was a man selling shields and spears. He praised the former saying, "My shields are so solid nothing can penetrate them". Then he would praise his spears saying, "My spears are so sharp that among all things there's nothing they can't penetrate". Somebody else said, "If somebody tried to penetrate your shields with your spears, what would happen?" The man could not respond.

Debating with a Confucianist about the legendary Chinese sage rulers Yao and Shun, Han Fei argues that one cannot praise them both because that would be making a "spear–shield" contradiction.

Wu wei

Devoting the entirety of Chapter 14, "How to Love the Ministers", to "persuading the ruler to be ruthless to his ministers", Han Fei's enlightened ruler strikes terror into his ministers by doing nothing (wu wei). Discarding his private reason and morality, he shows no personal feelings. The qualities of a ruler, his "mental power, moral excellence and physical prowess" are not as important as his method of government. Applying Fa (standards) requires no perfection on the part of the ruler.

If the Han Feizi's wu wei was derivative of a proto-Daoism, its Dao nonetheless emphasizes autocracy ("Tao does not identify with anything but itself, the ruler does not identify with the ministers"). Accepting that the Han Feizi applies wu wei specifically to statecraft, professor Xing Lu nonetheless argues that it actually does consider wu wei a virtue, and not just a tool or argument for the ruler to reduce activity and act impartially. The Han Feizi says, "by virtue [de] of resting empty and reposed, he waits for the course of nature to enforce itself."

The Han Feizi includes other commentaries on the Daodejing that would seem to assert that perspective-less knowledge – an absolute point of view – is possible. But scholarship has generally considered them an addendum, given differences with the rest of the work.

Performance and title (Xing-Ming)

A modern statue of the First Emperor and his attendants on horseback

The two August Lords of high antiquity grasped the handles of the Way and so were established in the center. Their spirits mysteriously roamed together with all transformations and thereby pacified the four directions. Huainanzi

Han Fei was notoriously focused on what he termed xing-ming, which Sima Qian and Liu Xiang define as "holding actual outcome accountable to ming (speech)." In line with both the Confucian and Mohist rectification of names, it is relatable to the Confucian tradition in which a promise or undertaking, especially in relation to a government aim, entails punishment or reward, though the tight, centralized control emphasized by the Han Feizi and predecessor Shen Buhai's conflicts with the Confucian idea of the autonomous minister.

Possibly referring to the drafting and imposition of laws and standardized legal terms, xing-ming may originally have meant "punishments and names", but with the emphasis on the latter. It functions through binding declarations (ming), like a legal contract. Verbally committing oneself, a candidate is allotted a job, indebting him to the ruler. "Naming" people to (objectively determined) positions, it rewards or punishes according to the proposed job description and whether the results fit the task entrusted by their word, which a real minister fulfils.

Han Fei insists on the perfect congruence between words and deeds. Fitting the name is more important than results. The completion, achievement, or result of a job is its assumption of a fixed form (xing), which can then be used as a standard against the original claim (ming). A large claim but a small achievement is inappropriate to the original verbal undertaking, while a larger achievement takes credit by overstepping the bounds of office.

Han Fei's 'brilliant ruler' "orders names to name themselves and affairs to settle themselves."

"If the ruler wishes to bring an end to treachery then he examines into the congruence of the congruence of xing (form) and claim (ming). This means to ascertain if words differ from the job. A minister sets forth his words and on the basis of his words the ruler assigns him a job. Then the ruler holds the minister accountable for the achievement which is based solely on his job. If the achievement fits his job, and the job fits his words, then he is rewarded. If the achievement does not fit his jobs and the job does not fit his words, then he will be punished.

Assessing the accountability of his words to his deeds, the ruler attempts to "determine rewards and punishments in accordance with a subject's true merit" (using Fa). It is said that using names (ming) to demand realities (shi) exalts superiors and curbs inferiors, provides a check on the discharge of duties, and naturally results in emphasizing the high position of superiors, compelling subordinates to act in the manner of the latter.

Han Fei considers xing-ming an essential element of autocracy, saying that "In the way of assuming Oneness names are of first importance. When names are put in order, things become settled down; when they go awry, things become unfixed." He emphasizes that through this system, earlier developed by Shen Buhai, uniformity of language could be developed, functions could be strictly defined to prevent conflict and corruption, and objective rules (fa) impervious to divergent interpretation could be established, judged solely by their effectiveness. By narrowing down the options to exactly one, discussions on the "right way of government" could be eliminated. Whatever the situation (shi) brings is the correct Dao.

Though recommending use of Shen Buhai's techniques, Han Fei's xing-ming is both considerably narrower and more specific. The functional dichotomy implied in Han Fei's mechanistic accountability is not readily implied in Shen's, and might be said to be more in line with the later thought of the Han dynasty linguist Xu Gan than that of either Shen Buhai or his supposed teacher Xun Kuang.

Ch.5 Way of the Ruler

While the Han Feizi includes ideas of law, Laozi's fa is usually translated as still referring to general standards or models. Laozi and Zhuangzi generally lacked and even opposed law because they did not regard words and names as "sufficient to express the Way", Laozi saying that "the name that can be named is not the constant name." However, A.C. Graham sees this as meaning not that words are useless, but only that they are imperfect descriptors. The work balances inadequacies using opposites.

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.) (Laozi 1)

The Han Feizi's commentaries on Laozi are a critique. For Han Fei, "names" refer to things like ministerial proposals, or "titles", so that Shen Buhai's concept of "names" can critique Laozi, at least for the Han Feizi's purposes. The Han Feizi's chapter 5 Zhudao (道主) or "Way of the Ruler" follows up Laozi, recalling the Tao te Ching together with Shen Buhai in a rhymed style much the Tao te Ching itself, with an idea of names "rectifying themselves".

Though not included amongst Sima Qian's short list of chapters, he may have considered Han Fei to be "rooted" in Huang-Lao based on Chapter 5's conception of the Way, including ideas of the Way as a standard and hints of metaphysics. Shen Buhai, Han Fei, and Sima Tan' preferably 'inactive' ruler contracts an assembly of ministers; correlating Ming ("names", or verbal claims) such as job proposals with the Xing "forms", "shapes" or results that they take, Xing results serve as a standard (fa) of comparison for ming claims, forming bureaucratic functions (ming "name" titles or offices) of opposing processes. With early examples in Shen Buhai (Shenzi), several of the Mawangdui silk texts bear resemblance to Han Fei's Chapter 5 discussion of Xing-Ming and its "brilliant (or intelligent) ruler", as do other eclectic Huang-Lao typified works, like the Guanzi, Huainanzi, and Sima Qian's Shiji.

[The sage ruler] does not like or dislike things because they are beautiful or ugly, nor is he pleased or angered by punishments and rewards. He lets each name name itself and each category categorize itself. Affairs proceed from what is so of themselves with no interference from him personally. Huainanzi

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. Ch5. W. K. Liao.

Compared with Laozi, the Han Feizi's "Way of the Ruler" has much less ambiguous language, promoting "the ruler's quiescence", "practical recommendations" and the management of ministers rather than a Daoist way of life or metaphysics. But it "affirms the primacy of the dao", recalling a passage from Laozi with the Way as the origin of the world. It follows recalling Shen Buhai, whose ruler followed the 'natural order' or Way (Dao), responding rather than acting himself, or wu wei.

In "strictly practical" terms, Shen Buhai, Shen Dao or Han Fei might loosely be thought of as originating in a Daoistic 'way in thought' in the sense of governmental models (or standards, fa) "derived from Dao", which Han Fei ultimately supplants with law. While Laozi, Zhuangzi, or Sima Qian did not generally advocate laws (fa), the recovered Mawangdui Silk Texts Huangdi Sijing did emphasize standards (fa) as including law. As the first sentence of the work, its Jingfa text regards the Dao as generating standards, with arguments more comparable to natural law.

The "Two Handles"

Mythical White Tiger. Qin Shi Huang was called the "Tiger of Qin"

Supposing the tiger cast aside its claws and fangs and let the dog use them, the tiger would, in turn, be subjected by the dog. Han Fei Zi

Though not entirely accurately, most Han works identify Shang Yang with penal law. Its discussion of bureaucratic control is simplistic, chiefly advocating punishment and reward. Shang Yang was largely unconcerned with the organization of the bureaucracy apart from this. The use of these "two handles" (punishment and reward) nonetheless forms a primary premise of Han Fei's administrative theory. However, he includes it under his theory of shu (administrative techniques) in connection with xing-ming.

As a matter of illustration, if the "keeper of the hat" lays a robe on the sleeping Emperor, he has to be put to death for overstepping his office, while the "keeper of the robe" has to be put to death for failing to do his duty. The philosophy of the "Two Handles" likens the ruler to the tiger or leopard, which "overpowers other animals by its sharp teeth and claws" (rewards and punishments). Without them he is like any other man; his existence depends upon them. To "avoid any possibility of usurpation by his ministers", power and the "handles of the law" must "not be shared or divided", concentrating them in the ruler exclusively.

In practice, this means that the ruler must be isolated from his ministers. The elevation of ministers endangers the ruler, from whom he must be kept strictly apart. Punishment confirms his sovereignty; law eliminates anyone who oversteps his boundary, regardless of intention. Law "aims at abolishing the selfish element in man and the maintenance of public order", making the people responsible for their actions.

Han Fei's rare appeal, among Legalists, to the use of scholars (law and method specialists) makes him comparable to the Confucians, in that sense. The ruler cannot inspect all officials himself, and must rely on the decentralized (but faithful) application of fa. Contrary to Shen Buhai and his own rhetoric, Han Fei insists that loyal ministers (like Guan Zhong, Shang Yang, and Wu Qi) exist, and upon their elevation with maximum authority. Though Fa-Jia sought to enhance the power of the ruler, this scheme effectively neutralizes him, reducing his role to the maintenance of the system of reward and punishments, determined according to impartial methods and enacted by specialists expected to protect him through their usage thereof. Combining Shen Buhai's methods with Shang Yang's insurance mechanisms, Han Fei's ruler simply employs anyone offering their services.

Anti-Confucianism

While Shen Buhai and Shen Dao's current may not have been hostile to Confucius, Shang Yang and Han Fei emphasize their rejection of past models as unverifiable if not useless ("what was appropriate for the early kings is not appropriate for modern rulers"). Han Fei argued that the age of Li had given way to the age of Fa, with natural order giving way to social order and finally political order. Together with that of Xun Kuang, their sense of human progress and reason guided the Qin dynasty.

Intending his Dao (way of government) to be both objective and publicly projectable, Han Fei argued that disastrous results would occur if the ruler acted on arbitrary, ad-hoc decision making, such as that based on relationships or morality which, as a product of reason, are "particular and fallible". Li, or Confucian customs, and rule by example are also simply too ineffective. The ruler cannot act on a case-by-case basis, and so must establish an overarching system, acting through Fa (administrative methods or standards). Fa is not partial to the noble, does not exclude ministers, and does not discriminate against the common people.

Linking the "public" sphere with justice and objective standards, for Han Fei, the private and public had always opposed each other. Taking after Shang Yang he lists the Confucians among his "five vermins", and calls the Confucian teaching on love and compassion for the people the "stupid teaching" and "muddle-headed chatter", the emphasis on benevolence an "aristocratic and elitist ideal" demanding that "all ordinary people of the time be like Confucius' disciples". Moreover, he dismisses it as impracticable, saying that "In their settled knowledge, the literati are removed from the affairs of the state ... What can the ruler gain from their settled knowledge?", and points out that "Confucianism" is not a unified body of thought.

In opposition to Confucian family sentiment, Tao Jiang (2021) takes Han Fei's analysis of family dynamics as based entirely on the position of the ruler, requiring structural solutions rather than Confucian education or moral cultivation. According to the Liji, an "important early Confucian canon", penal laws should not be applied to high officials. As a major source of political corruption, ministers shielded family members from penal measures in the name of Humaneness and others moral justifications. Only those without connections are subject to the law. Although noting an opposition between politic and morality, Tao Jiang takes Han Fei's opposition in this as clearly pointing to a moral dimension in his vision of political order. In what Tao Jiang takes as one of Han Fei's "most powerful condemnation of the gross injustice suffered by the commoners", Han Fei says:

Judging from the tales handed down from high antiquity and the incidents recorded in the Spring and Autumn Annals, 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.

Comparisons and views

Apart from the influence of Confucianist Xun Zi, who was his and Li Si's teacher, because of the Han Feizi's commentary on the Daodejing, interpreted as a political text, the Han Feizi has sometimes been included as part of the syncretist Huang-Lao tradition, seeing the Tao as a natural law that everyone and everything was forced to follow, like a force of nature.

Being older than more recent scholarship, translator W. K. Liao (1939) described the world view of the Han Feizi as "purely Taoistic", advocating a "doctrine of inaction" nonetheless followed by an "insistence on the active application of the two handles to government", this being the "difference between Han Fei Tzŭ's ideas and the teachings of the orthodox Taoists (who advocated non-action from start to finish)." Liao compares Han Fei's thought to Shang Yang, "directing his main attention... to the issues between ruler and minister... teaching the ruler how to maintain supremacy and why to weaken the minister."

Phan Ngọc in his foreword to the Han Feizi praised Han Fei as a knowledgeable man with sharp, logical and firm arguments, supported by large amount of practical and realistic evidence. Han Fei's strict methods were appropriate in a context of social decadence. Phan Ngọc claimed that Han Fei's writings has three drawbacks, however: first, his idea of Legalism was unsuited to autocracy because a ruling dynasty will sooner or later deteriorate. Second, due to the inherent limitation of autocratic monarchy system, Han Fei did not manage to provide the solutions for all the issues that he pointed out. Third, Han Fei was wrong to think that human is inherently evil and only seeks fame and profit: there are humans who sacrificed their own profit for the greater good, including Han Fei himself. Trần Ngọc Vương considered the Han Feizi to be superior to Machiavelli's Prince, and claimed that Han Fei's ideology was highly refined for its era.

Although considering the Han Feizi rich and erudite, Sinologist Chad Hansen does not consider Han Fei particularly original, philosophical or ethical" and "more polemical than reasoned", with unjustified assumptions and cynicism recognizable "from all self-described realists", resting on the familiar sneering tone of superior realistic insight."

Totalitarianism

Han Fei has been called totalitarian, but is not very supported in modern scholarship as lacking an ideological basis. The Han Feizi opposes Confucianism and Mohism, or "discourses of the former kings" inasmuch as moralizing discourse could be manipulative. Han Fei says the king should prohibit doctrines he doesn't approve of, or make them official doctrine. If they join the state as teachers of law, it doesn't oppose "in principle" that they could contribute beneficial ideas, codifying their teachings into law rather than texts.

Han Fei's management doesn't require that all programs benefit the state the way he thinks they should. They just have to do what they say they're going to do.

The minister presents his statement; the ruler assigns him tasks according to his statement, and evaluates his merits exclusively according to the task. (Han Feizi 7: 40–41)

Per Sinologist Goldin, Han Fei "might advocate authoritarianism", but is too "nihilist" to offer ideological backing for totalitarianism, not trusting ministers who "claim to be guided by principles beyond reward and punishment." Han Fei sometimes sympathizes on behalf of the people, but generally operates in the name of nothing besides the ruler. Together with what is taken as a concern for justice, Sinologist Tao Jiang posits his "total rejection of any political actors and agents independent of the state" as a basis for totalitarianism.

Han Fei was "adamant that blatant manipulation and subversion of law to the detriment of the state and the ruler should never be tolerated", condemning "gross injustice suffered by the commoners." His solution for aiding the people or saving the state is depriving ministers of power, the same thing he advocates as serving the ruler's interest. Punishing and rewarding the ministers might also benefit the people, who might also benefit from punishment and reward. Virtue and love directed toward them probably will not benefit them.

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.

Translations

• Liao, W. K. (1939). The Complete Works of Han Fei Tzu. London: Arthur Probsthain.
• ——— (1959). The Complete Works of Han Fei Tzu, Volume II. London: Arthur Probsthain.
• Han Fei Tzu: Basic Writings. Translated by Watson, Burton. New York: Columbia University Press. 1964. ISBN 0231086091. LCCN 64013734. {{cite book}}: ISBN / Date incompatibility (help)

See also

• Bi Fang bird

References

Works cited

• Carson, Michael; Loewe, Michael (1993). "Lü shih ch'un ch'iu 呂氏春秋". In Loewe, Michael (ed.). Early Chinese Texts: A Bibliographical Guide. Berkeley: Society for the Study of Early China; Institute of East Asian Studies, University of California Berkeley. pp. 324–30. ISBN 1-55729-043-1.
• Chang, Leo S. (1998). The Four Political Treatises of the Yellow Emperor: Original Mawangdui Texts with Complete English Translations and an Introduction. Society for Asian and Comparative Philosophy. Monograph No.15. University of Hawaiʻi Press.
• Creel, Herrlee Glessner (September 15, 1982) [1970]. What Is Taoism?: And Other Studies in Chinese Cultural History. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 9780226120478 – via Google Books.
• Creel, Herrlee Glessner (1959). "The Meaning of Hsing-Ming". Studia Serica: Sinological studies dedicated to Bernhard Kalgren. Copenhagen: Ejnar Munksgaard. pp. 200–211.
• Cua, Antonio S. (2003). Encyclopedia of Chinese Philosophy. Routledge. ISBN 9781135367480.
• Ess, Hans van (1993). "The Meaning of Huang-Lao in Shiji and Hanshu". Études chinoises. 12 (2): 161–177. doi:10.3406/etchi.1993.1195.
• Goldin, Paul R. (2005). After Confucius: Studies In Early Chinese Philosophy. University of Hawai'i Press. ISBN 978-0-8248-2842-4.
• Goldin, Paul R. (2012). Dao Companion to the Philosophy of Han Fei. Dao Companions to Chinese Philosophy. University of Pennsylvania: Springer. ISBN 978-0-19-760347-5.
  • Goldin, Paul R. (2013), Introduction: Han Fei and the Han Feizi. In: Dao Companion to the Philosophy of Han Fei (PDF), Springer, pp. 1–21, ISBN 978-9-400-74318-2 – via The University of Pennsylvania
  • Pines, Yuri (2013), Submerged by Absolute Power: The Ruler's Predicament in the Han Feizi. In: Dao Companion to the Philosophy of Han Fei (PDF), pp. 67–86, doi:10.1007/978-94-007-4318-2_4, ISBN 978-94-007-4317-5
• Graham, A.C. (1989). Disputers of the Tao: Philosophical Argument in Ancient China. Open Court. ISBN 978-0-8126-9942-5.
• Guo, Baogang (2008). "Traditional Culture Embodied in Confucianism". China in Search of a Harmonious Society. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. ISBN 9780739126240.
• Hansen, Chad (1992). A Daoist Theory of Chinese Thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-535076-0.
• Hansen, Chad (2000) [1992]. A Daoist Theory of Chinese Thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-535076-0.
• Harris, Eirik Lang (2016). The Shenzi Fragments. New York: Columbia University Press. ISBN 9780231542166.
• Hsiao, Kung-Chuan (1979). A History of Chinese Political Thought. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-691-61289-8.
• Hsieh, S.Y. (1985). "The Legalist Philosophers". In Barlow, Jeffrey G.; Bishop, Donald H. (eds.). Chinese Thought: An Introduction. Motilal Banarsidass. ISBN 9780836411300.
• Hutton, Eric L. (2008). "Han Feizi's Criticism of Confucianism and its Implications for Virtue Ethics" (PDF). Journal of Moral Philosophy. 5 (3): 423–453. doi:10.1163/174552408X369745.
• Jiang, Tao (2021). "Universal Bureaucratic State as the Sole Agent of Justice in Han Feizi's Thought". Origins of Moral-Political Philosophy in Early China. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780197603475.
• Knechtges, David R. (2010). "Han Feizi" 韓非子. In Knechtges, David R.; Chang, Taiping (eds.). Ancient and Early Medieval Chinese Literature: A Reference Guide, Part One. Leiden: Brill. pp. 313–317. ISBN 978-90-04-19127-3.
• Lévi, Jean (1993). "Han fei tzu" 韓非子. In Loewe, Michael (ed.). Early Chinese Texts: A Bibliographical Guide. Berkeley: Society for the Study of Early China; Institute of East Asian Studies, University of California Berkeley. pp. 115–24. ISBN 1-55729-043-1.
• Liao, W.K. (1939). The Complete Works of Han Fei Tzu. Arthur Probsthain.
• Loewe, Michael (1999). The Cambridge History of Ancient China. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-47030-8.
• Lundahl, Bertil (1992). Lundahl, Bertil (ed.). Han Fei Zi: The Man and the Work. Institute of Oriental Languages, Stockholm University. ISBN 9789171530790.
• Makeham, John (1994). Name and Actuality in Early Chinese Thought. State University of New York Press. ISBN 978-1-4384-1174-3.
• Nivison, David Shepherd (1999). "The Classical Philosophical Writings". In Loewe, Michael; Shaughnessy, Edward (eds.). The Cambridge History of Ancient China. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 745–812. ISBN 0-521-47030-7.
• Peerenboom, Randall (1993). Law and Morality in Ancient China. The Silk Manuscripts of Huang-Lao. State University of New York Press. ISBN 9780791412381.
• Pines, Yuri (2017). The Book of Lord Shang: Apologetics of State Power in Early China. Abridged Edition. Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-0-231-55038-3.
• Pines, Yuri (2019). The Book of Lord Shang: Apologetics of State Power in Early China. Abridged Edition. Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-0-231-55038-3.
• Pines, Yuri (2023). "Legalism in Chinese Philosophy". In Zalta, Edward N.; Nodelman, Uri (eds.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2023 ed.). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved 2023-08-23.
• Pines, Yuri (2024). Dao Companion to China's fa Tradition. Dao Companions to Chinese Philosophy. Hebrew University of Jerusalem: Springer. ISBN 9783031536304.
  • Pines, Yuri (2024c), Chapter 4. Han Feizi: The World Driven by Self-Interest. In: Pines, Y. (eds) Dao Companion to China's fa Tradition (PDF), Dao Companions to Chinese Philosophy, Springer, Cham, pp. 99–138, doi:10.1007/978-3-031-53630-4_5, ISBN 9783031536298
  • Lewis, Mark Edward. "Chapter 11 The Ruler in the Polity of Objective Standards". In Pines (2024), pp. 315-349.
• Schneider, Henrique (2018). An Introduction to Hanfei's Political Philosophy. Lady Stephenson Library, Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. ISBN 978-1-5275-0812-5.
• Wagner, Anne (2023). Anne Wagner (ed.). Research Handbook on Legal Semiotics. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. ISBN 9781802207262.

External links

• Full text of Han Feizi in English and Classical Chinese
• Full text of Han Feizi in Classical Chinese
• Han Feizi at PhilPapers
• Han Feizi 《韓非子》 Chinese text with matching English vocabulary