Han Feizi
The Han Feizi 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, 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.
Late pre-Han dating
The Han Feizi was originally simply named the Hanzi. The title was expanded to its full name during the Tang Dynasty, possibly to avoid confusion with the Confucian poet Han Yu. Not counting 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. A few sources list it as one p'ien longer, but was likely just copyist error; there are slightly shorter editions, but was later restored to full length and these went out of print inside China.Sima Qian presents Han Fei as a late Warring states figure. Because Sima Qian only mentions a few chapters, it is not possible to outright preclude a 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.
Except as compilations, some chapters would have to be at least that late. 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 have conceivably preceded its fall in 230bce, or either Zhao and Wei if they had only yet ceded territory.
Containing some of the first commentaries on the Tao te Ching, Chinese scholarship agreed with the west on a late dating for Laozi content in the work. But it also does not contain as much naturalist argument that would be expected of later Daoist works going into the Han dynasty. The Han Feizi itself contributes to a late dating for the modern tao te ching. Although not necessarily it's "original", the Han Feizi is probably reading from an early, less metaphysical version, like the Mawangdui silk texts.
Introduction
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 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, 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, 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.".
Confucian comparison
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.Some authors of the Han Feizi took a negative view of Confucianism, and the work has little interest in them 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 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 also criticizes Shang Yang in much the same way that the Confucians critique law. Holding that laws cannot practice themselves, it blames him 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, 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. 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 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. 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 of resting empty and reposed, he waits for the course of nature to enforce itself."
With visible usages of Xing-Ming, the Han Feizi's chapter 5 Zhudao or "Way of the Ruler" recalls Laozi and Shen Buhai in parallel style, with the idea of names "rectifying themselves" "anticipated" by Shen Buhai.
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)
was notoriously focused on what he termed xing-ming, which Sima Qian and Liu Xiang define as "holding actual outcome accountable to ming." 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, like a legal contract. Verbally committing oneself, a candidate is allotted a job, indebting him to the ruler. "Naming" people to 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, which can then be used as a standard against the original claim. 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."
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". It is said that using names to demand realities 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 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 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.