Talk:Legalism (Chinese philosophy)/Archive 6

Adjunct backup notes, will be lifted out later.FourLights (talk) 09:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Creel's branches of the Fajia

Although predated for instance by Arthur Waley, Feng Youlan (1948) introduced a three elements view of the subject to the west with Han Fei as synthesizer. Feng Youlan presented fa as law, regulation or pattern, shu as the method or art of conducting affairs and handling men (statecraft), and shi as power or authority, connecting Fa with Gongsun Yang, shu with Shen Buhai, and Shi with Shen Dao, with each supposed to have a group preceding Han Fei.

Sinologist Herrlee G. Creel (1970/1974) saw however no evidence of a recognizable Shen Dao following. A theorist in his own right, Shen Dao would be later be taken as relevant for the Daoists. Creel presented the fajia as stemming primarily from Han Fei combination of two disparate contemporary thinkers, Shang (Gongsun) Yang and Shen Buhai. Although Han Fei's status as "grand synthesizer" would generally be accepted by scholarship, Creel only considered therefore its combination very imperfect.

Because, historically, despite the presentation of their opponents, those advocating policies derived of Shang Yang or Shen Buhai did not endorse each other's views, Creel advised that the Shen Buhai group be called "administrators", "methodists" or "technocrats", in contrast to the more "Legalist" Shang Yang. Neither Shen Buhai or his successors, Creel said, can be understood as Legalist by the English definition of the term. It's view would be reiterated by Sinologist Goldin (2011), as relevant for Pines Stanford Encyclopedia and Tao Jiang more modernly, neither much using the term outside it's discussion.

Themselves still taking Han Fei as the great synthesizer of Legalism, With shu as a term for Shen Buhai's fa or method, Han Fei, Graham says, takes Gongsun as centered on law (fa) and Shen Buhai 'methods' (shu) or "techniques for controlling administrators". Although as Creel notes, Han Fei and Shen Buhai are more focused in bureaucratic organization, Han Fei himself declares law and method both indispensable. Elsewhere Han Fei discusses Shen Dao's shi or situational authority, which some took as evidence of a third group. But law (fa) is prominent in the Shen Dao fragments, while Han Fei's argument elevates fa.

Shu, or method/technique, as the most frequently used term to describe Shen Buhai's doctrine historically, does not appear in the Shen Buhai fragments. Only shu (数) numbers does, which Creel took as evolving towards administrative technique. Han Fei and Li Si (the latter as quoted by Sima Qian) quote Shen Buhai as using fa in the sense of what Creel translated as method, but never law. Graham takes Han Fei's shu as "distinguishing between law as public and method as private", sharpened by the contrast between the two, calling method the arcanum of the ruler. Although Han Fei has tactics in later chapters, method itself is concerned almost exclusively with the ruler's selection of ministers, as including performance monitoring. Syncretizing with Gongsun Yang, Han Fei addends automatized reward and punishment.

Although their topics are not as narrow as Han Fei presents, and despite Han Fei's inclusion of the power over life and death under shu, there is no basis to suppose that Shen Buhai himself advocated Shang Yang's doctrine of reward and punishments. Creel notes six works as identifying Shen with bureaucracy; none identify him with penal law when spoken of by himself, and none pre-Han. Only when he is paired with Shang Yang is penal law attributed to them together in the Han dynasty. Historically, as with Shen himself, Shen's so-called" Shu "branch" largely ignored Shang Yang and penal practice, sometimes even opposing punishment.

In contrast to the limited body pertaining to Shen Buhai, censured under Han dynasty Confucian influence, Creel notes an "impressive body" of early works unanimously testifying Gongsun Yang's doctrines as described by Han Fei. That is, his doctrine being called fa, as including penal law, rewards and punishments, and lacking shu. Apart from general mutual surveillance and holding ministers to the public fa, he advised no method to control and supervise ministers. Most historical works posthumously emphasize his use of harsh penal law. No work indicates concern for organization or control of the bureaucracy. Although his fa limits ministerial power, Han Fei, Pines says, "famously criticizes him for paying insufficient interest to the bureaucracy"; his fa is insufficient for it.

Recalled by Tao Jiang, Creel mostly leaves the Legalist interpretation of him alone, accepting it as ancient China's Legalist school or branch. However, despite portrayal and the Han dynasty's penal reception, in reviewing the Shangjunshu, Creel also saw Gongsun as sometimes using Fa in an administrative sense. The Book of Lord Shang, Goldin says, engages statutes more from an administrative standpoint, as well as addressing many other administrative questions. Pines's 2017 translation of the Book of Lord Shang uses law where appropriate, but considers its fa to have impersonal administration as its second most common meaning. For Pines, Gongsun's fa primarily "channels social forces toward desirable social and political ends", in his case agriculture and war. Acknowledging the insufficiency of his management, Tao Jiang more modernly promotes him as a bureaucratic pioneer, with fa impartial regulations as law.

The scholar Shen Dao (350 – c. 275 BCE) Shen Dao covered a "remarkable" quantity of 'Legalist' and Daoist themes, but lacked a recognizable group of followers. Although focused on fa, he is remembered for shih because Han Fei incorporates him into the Han Feizi for his themes on Shi as "power" or "situational advantage", for which he is also incorporated into the The Art of War. Despite shih's necessity, and although seeking to improve its argument, Han Fei says that he speaks on Shi "for mediocre rulers", emphasizing institution. Xun Kuang associates law (fa) primarily with Shen Dao, naming Shen Buhai for the doctrine of power. More theoretically, Han Fei may have otherwise derived shi from the Book of Lord Shang.

Alongside Creel's What is Taoism?, his Shen Pu-Hai: A Chinese Political Philosopher of the Fourth Century B. C. remains the only major publication on Shen Buhai. Prominently referenced and recalled, although himself promoting Shang Yang over Shen Buhai, Tao Jiang emphasizes Creel's heavy utilization of other works, taking him as still "very useful for understanding fajia thought more generally."

Creel's What is Taoism

"Legalists/Administrators", while Karyn Lai's dedicated 2008 Introduction to Chinese Philosophy still relied heavily on Creel and Benjamin Schwarz. Although incomplete, and with different viewpoints, a line of scholarship for Creel can be traced as follows.

• Kung, Schwarz, Graham, Hansen, S. R. Hsieh 1995, Karyn Lai 2008, Goldin 2011, Fraiser 2011 (Oxford), Tao Jiang, Pines

• Creel, Herrlee Glessner.1970. What Is Taoism?: And Other Studies in Chinese Cultural History

p49,69,103. The combination commonly became known as the Fajia.
p61 Hu shih, Han Fei critique; fragments always method, never law
p61-62 Shu not in fragments, Shu 数 numbers instead
81-83. use methods lack punishment, Han Fei quote. Xing-Ming equivilent to the earlier ming-shih.
p90. Confucians disliked Xing-Ming, Xing did not originally mean punishment, reformers often use the earlier ming-shih, advocate against punishment
p93.Shen Buhai "school" indifferent or opposed to penal law. Fa as method in fragments, no Shu
p.95,100 Han Fei two schools, Shen Dao, Han Fei criticizes them for lacking each other's components.
No work associates Shang Yang with bureaucracy
p97-98,100. Ministerial danger, techniques
p100. Unlike Shen Buhai, Shang Yang's use of Xing-Ming is not substantiated by his biography or other works
p101. Six works identify Shen with bureaucracy, nothing with penal law by himself.
102. Role of the ruler and bureaucracy, Legalism rejection.
103. Li Si, Sima Qian p101. No longer aware of the differences in the former Han p106. Jia Yi glossing. Han officials made a point of detesting the Qin dynasty until Emperor Wen. p.113 popular opposition to penal law, deliberate promotion of confusion by opponents of the Fajia

Three Elements view

Receiving little literary attention in his time, a three elements view of the subject was early elaborated Liang Qichao. Misinterpreting Han Fei's critique of Shen Dao, chapter 40, he takes Shen Buhai and Shen Dao as earlier rival currents, with true Legalists rejecting the former and following Fa. Its early discussion may be seen as evidence against the idea that, unlike India, China lacked a tradition to fall back on in modern reform. However, while Liang Qichao is discussed on other fronts, as including his rule of man vs rule of law, no one holds his three elements view in the west, refuted by Chinese scholars long ago.

As opposed to Liang Qichao's antagonist three elements, Feng Youlan introduced a three elements view of the subject to the west with Han Fei as synthesizer. Feng Youlan presented shi as power or authority, shu as the method or art of conducting affairs and handling men (statecraft), and fa as law, regulation or pattern, connecting Fa with Gongsun Yang, Shu with Shen Buhai, and Shi with Shen Dao, with each supposed to have a group preceding Han Fei.

Chinese law expert Randall Peenrenboom takes a three elements view as having been considered simplistic before the turn of the century; Zhengyuan Fu's The Earliest Totalitarians (1996) includes it for the sake of the reader, with a chapter per theme. With the Oxford Handbooks at least intended to include an original argument, Sinologist Chris Fraiser would reiterate the view in the Oxford Handbook (2011). With reference to Sinologist Goldin rather than Fraiser, Tao Jiang would go on to argue point, framing it as a traditional view preceeding Creel, while Pine's Stanford Encyclopedia would abandon the moniker of Legalism for the fa Tradition.

Three Elements part two

Sinologist Chris Fraiser would anomalously reiterate the view in the Oxford Handbook (2011), calling the Fajia a misnomer, with the otherwise unelaborated statement that they were not all focused on fa. The Oxford Handbooks "bring together the world’s leading scholars to write review essays that evaluate the current thinking on a field or topic, and make an original argument about the future direction of the debate." Although not by reference to Fraiser for it's argument, Tao Jiang would go on to argue fa as key notion, while Pines Stanford would adopt the fa Tradition, with reference to Sinologist Goldin.

Along with other works on the Mohists, Fraiser takes Creel, Graham, and Hansen as reference. Prior Winston, Hansen's explicitly Zhuangist, iconoclastic work opposed his forebears as in particular Graham in argument against Legal positivist interpretation. He took Shen Dao's shih, as more simply situational authority or stature, as primary. Nonetheless, Hansen considered shu method nonsensical without fa objective standards, and it includes a round-about statement that shi stature "sometimes" depends on fa institution. However, Fraiser does not engage in his elaborate argument on shi; it's standard argument supports fa. Although abandoning fa as legal positivism, as with Graham, Fraiser's work took them as practitioners of a realistic, amoral brand of statecraft.

Fraiser says: "The Legalists proposed a number of keys to successful government, which Han Fei draws together into a coherent system. He credits his predecessors with articulating three crucial concepts in particular." Fa (standards,laws), for Shang Yang; shu (arts, techniques) for Shen Buhai; and shi (position,power) for Shen Dao. Han Fei criticizes the shortcomings of all three men while showing how their common ideas can be combined into a cogent, unified theory."

Fraiser takes Han Fei's fa as including clear, explicit, specific, publicly promulgated standards with criteria encompassing laws, job performance, military and bureaucratic promotion, and regulation of the general population. Fa eliminates differences in treatment amongst the population. Reiterating Hansen's more pertinent arguments with less bent, fa as objective standards prevent deception of the ruler. Gongsun's Fa's transparency, exactness and promulgation limit official power, and prevent bending, violation or official corruption and abuse. Hansen takes fa as simply attacking ministers.

Fraser defines Han Fei's shu as "managerial arts or techniques", constituting undisclosed and uncodified methods. They include merit-based appointment, strict accountability in relation to job titles, and the employment of reward and punishment ensuring the performance of duties. Officials are assigned duties according to their administrative proposals (comparing with actions, results, performance or title). Reiterating Creel, their combined doctrine under Han Fei (and Shen Buhai) is called xingming, although Shen Buhai uses an earlier term. Fraiser and Hansen reiterating Graham, shu is in part an inheritance of the Mohist's doctrine of promoting the worthy, if not the rectification of names shared with the Confucians and others.

Fraser takes Han Fei's shi as institutional power or advantageous position, wielded to implement fa standards, administrative techniques to manage the administration, and the handles of life and death. Favoring the average ruler, it contrasts with the Confucian ideal of rule by moral worth and moral authority, which Han Fei sees as "foolishly unrealistic", condemning the state to constant misgovernment awaiting a sage king. As with Graham, without institutional power only a handful of people can be governed. Charisma and moral worth cannot control a large populace, requiring fa and shu.

Hansen 1992

Along with other works on the Mohists, Creel, Graham and Hansen are represented as primary references preceding the Oxford. As representing a conversation between the Sinologists, Hansen, openly discussing both Schwarz and Graham, is taken in review as more less openly dialectical in opposing his forebears. Playing into the idea of himself as a reincarnation of Zhuangzi and a Zhuangzist missionary, Hansen compares his own thought to the iconoclastic Mormonism of Joseph Smith.

Pines notes that although "the fa thinkers in general and Han Fei in particular are often condemned as defenders of 'monarchic despotism'", Graham viewed Han Fei's system as making sense only “if seen from the viewpoint of the bureaucrat rather than the man at the top." Hansen characterizes Han Feizi as the first Zi (master) from the ruling nobility, with doctrines that favor authority. As a component of argument, Hansen recalls the Guanzi as still taking the ruler's interest as primary, but makes a number of other arguments.

Graham takes Shen Buhai's doctrine, connecting office with ability rather than favour, as descending from the Mohist principle of 'elevating worth and employing ability'. Han Fei credits Shen Buhai with "making responsible for the object as laid down by the name" and "testing the abilities of all the ministers." While Creel suggests that the Confucians derived the concept of correcting names from Shen Buhai, Graham takes it more likely that Shen Buhai took it from the Confucians.

Following Graham, Hansen characterizes Shu as an objective standards adaptation of the Confucian-mohist theory of advancing the worthy, appointing and advancing on a basis of merit. Hansen presents Shen Buhai's shu technique, characterized as wu wei, as controlling ministers, preventing power drain. despite comparing the Fajia with the Confucians more broadly, ministerial functions, characterized as wu wei in leaving ministerial duties to ministers, Hansen relegates to the category of Confucianism with the statement that they use the term wu wei differently. Which is true in the sense that Shen Buhai doesn't discuss virtue, but his wu wei still leaves ministerial duties to ministers as a basic component.

Hansen's discussion of Shi starts with Shen Dao. This time, Han Fei's ruler follows or starts with Shen Dao's shi. Shen Dao's shi is characterized as a pull of authority, as a function of stature alone. This includes such suitable examples as a heightened throne. Hansen takes shi rather than fa as primary for his work. It's argument is as follows.

• Shi stature as primary is "sometimes" an application of wu wei distance, i.e. distance enhances stature.
• shi and wu wei "sometimes" depend on institutions
• shu/wu wei enhance shi, which "sometimes depend on institutions."
• Shu/wu wei, which "sometimes" depend on institutions, depend on shi charisma, which is an application of wu wei.
• Similarly, shu relies on objective standards.

Some of the individual statements involved have some merit, others not particularly, i.e., taking shi stature as primary, shi stature is "sometimes" dependent on instititution. Really? So my stature, as the primary element of a political philosophy, is not based on whether or not I am president? It's possible that Hansen's dialectics of power has been carried over modernly in the form of his disctinction between the Mohists and Fajia in the form of standards as arbitrary determined by the ruler, but this verbiage at least does not appear to have been carried over.

For it's further argument, this time Han Fei follows Shen Dao's shi as a function of stature alone, as including a high throne. Contrary Pines, but resembling Graham in not considering the ruler's qualities, the ruler may be evil for a more complicated situation. The (evil) ruler cannot simply rely on shu method, or the ministers will look for his real preferences to manipulate him. Relying on shi charisma, he must fool the ministers that "he is in fact a sage ruler—concerned with his rational or higher interest". To prevent the formation of cliques, the (evil) ruler cannot use shu method to reward them for things he desires, but has to use fa objective standards to reward them for measurable public accomplishments. Practicing justice, the ministers will never guess whether he is interested in justice or just women.

Ordinary people, Hansen says, "have an interest in security against arbitrary punishment" by controlling penal officials. While the fa of Shang Yang limits ministerial power over the people, shu controls their power relative to the ruler. Objective standards prevent ministers from arbitrarily rewarding or punishing to acquire a power base. Discarding the people from the equation, and leaving out their other institutions, for Hansen, both simply oppose the ministers in the ruler's interest. As Han Fei is less concerned with the people than he is the bureaucracy of his disordered state, lacking Gongsun's fa and proceeding from the collapse of the Jin to aristocrats and ministerial clans, he purportedly considers both necessary from the perspective of the ruler alone. The argument is stated to be sociological.

Although considering their anti-ministerialism profound, Pines takes the overarching principle of fa thought to be an insistence on rule "by impartial standards as advantageous over reliance on human factor in politics." His introduction concludes that, for the tradition, rule by impersonal standards is "not just the most effective way of overcoming personal inadequacies." It is also the moral way, insofar as morality is taken as impartiality rather than Confucian “benevolence and righteousness”.

Anti-ministerialism

In contrast to the institutional basis of Graham, his successor in Tao Jiang, or Pines Stanford, Hansen placed key emphasis on anti-ministerialism as a component of his argument against Legalist interpretation. As opposed to Graham's Legalism, or state order of reward and punishment, Hansen treats Gongsun as anti-bureaucratic in the ruler's interest as a precursor to that of Han Fei. Hansen characterizes them together with their predecessor Mozi as following a philosophical tradition of "objective, public, accessible standards (Fa)" as opposed to that represented by Xun Kuang's schooled magistrates, a contrast reiterated by the Encyclopedia of Chinese Philosophy (2003/2013) between Shang Yang and Xunzi.

Shang Yang's punishment contributes, Hansen says, to a tendency to see his Fa standards as essentially penal. But to quote Gongsun Yang, "Government officials and people who are desirous of knowing what the fa stipulates shall all address their inquiries to these fa officers, and they shall in all such cases clearly tell them about the fa and mandates about which they wish to inquire." In this sense, Gongsun's Fa is not simply anti-people, but attack's ministerial privilege and power over the people by spreading knowledge of the Fa, while that of Shen Buhai does so privately. In this regard it primarily prevents arbitrary reward and punishment.

By preventing ministers from using punishment and reward, it also prevents from acquiring a powerbase, as one of Han Fei's focuses. In contrast to Graham however, Hansen goes further in saying that Han Fei regards both as necessary only from the perspective of the ruler. A shift from anti-people to anti-ministerialism may on the surface look good for Gongsun Yang. As later elaborated by Kenneth Winston however, a focus in the ruler's interest attacks rule of law, simply taking law as an instrument in the hands of the ruler. Anti-ministerialism can be taken as a component of Gongsun's fa in reliance on the public, taking is as primary simplys represents an attack on the subject, with that not being it's primary function.

While Hansen may have taken Fa as represented in Gongsun Yang as primarily anti-ministerial, Pines modernly still does not, at least to as high a degree. Pines takes Gongsuns Fa primarily as institutions of the state which channel social forces toward desirable social and political ends. Han Fei "famously criticizes Shang Yang" for being too focused on Fa in this sense, paying insufficient interest to governing the bureaucracy. Although considering their anti-ministerialism profound, the clear parallels, Pines says, between the Shangjunshu and the Han Feizi and other works, is an "insistence on the advantage of impersonal administrative methods (fa) over individual decision making by the ruler and his aides."

Goldin's persistent misconceptions

Goldin is recalled by Tao Jiang (2021) and Pines Stanford Encyclopedia (2021).

Tao Jiang addresses him in the capacity of argument with regards with the elements. Pines addresses him in the capacity of Legalism, simply addressing Shi in the context of chapter 40, i.e. he addresses it by relegating it as a commentary from chapter 40, which is what it is at basic, modernly. Acknowledging Shen Dao as focused on shi rather than fa, Tao Jiang goes on to explicitly form an entire argument on shi's basis towards the end of his work. I.e., while certainly one method of exploratory scholarship, Tao Jiang engages in an archaeological lense with chapter 40 as a basis. Such contexts have to be kept in mind.

Sinologist Goldin takes a tendency to "extol Han Fei as great synthesizer", at the expense of other ancient Chinese political philosophers as traceable to a self-serving depiction by Han Fei of Shen Dao, Shen Buhai, and Gongsun Yang as authors of single political concepts, with only Han Fei combining them into a coherent philosophy. Han Fei attributes shu to Shen Buhai as lacking fa, but Shen Buhai uses fa quite often. To Han Fei's credit, as Goldin notes, while Han Fei attributes shu to Shen Buhai, Han Fei quotes Shen Buhai as using fa in the sense of what Creel translated as method. He lacks Shang Yang's fa as more akin to law.

Although his influence may not have been as prominent among the Fajia, if anyone deserves to be recognized as a member of fajia, Goldin says, it is Shen Dao, who was criticized by Xunzi for being 'beclouded by fa'". Addending that they, and not Shen Buhai, have reward and punishment, together with some broader use of fa as more akin to law, in summation, Goldin takes Shen Dao and Han Fei as otherwise using fa in much the same way as Shen Buhai, that is, as impersonal administrative technique. He takes a particular quotation by Han Fei as example:

An enlightened ruler employs fa to pick his men; he does not select them himself. He employs fa to weigh their merit; he does not fathom it himself. Ability cannot be obscured nor failure prettified. If those who are [falsely] glorified cannot advance, and likewise those who are maligned cannot be set back, then there will be clear distinctions between lord and subject, and order will be easily [attained]. Thus the ruler can only use fa.

His work then primarily a critique of Legalism, Goldin says: "Creel’s objection to translating fajia as 'legalism' is still valid today and deserves to be repeated." Goldin provides a quotation from Creel: Sima Tan... was clearly aware that the school had two emphases, with fa meaning both “law” and “method.” It sometimes means both simultaneously, even in the Shangjunshu. “Method” is the sense in which Shen Buhai used fa, in all of its quotations. The Han Feizi 韓非子 quotes Shen as saying: “What is called ‘method’ (fa) is to examine achievement [as the ground for] giving rewards, and to use ability as the basis upon which to bestow office.”

Goldin glosses Shen Dao and Shen Buhai together as an administrative technique of reward and punishment. He glosses Xing-Ming as Shen Buhai's doctrine with reference to an earlier work in Creel's What is Daoism, equivocating Xing-Ming with the earlier ming-shih.

However, Goldin includes referenced addendum in Creel's Shen-Pu Hai refuting Xing-Ming and punishment as present in the Shen Buhai fragments, as to not mislead the reader. i.e. Goldin is glossing but not intentionally misleading the discriminating scholar. Providing his own addendum, the editor infers that Goldin is neither stupid nor dishonest.

• Goldin, Paul R. (March 2011). p8-9,15-16 "Persistent misconceptions about Chinese 'Legalism'".

Tao Jiang

Tao Jiang glosses Goldin rather than Fraiser as espousing a three elements view. He references Goldin with page numbers for every other argument, leaving it's particular reference without a page number. Apart from a dubious attempt to diversify Gongsun Yang, Goldin's argument actually supports Tao Jiang's fa as key notion for the other two. Tao Jiang's essay adopts his glossed common definition of fa. Tao Jiang goes on to address Fraiser 2011 more directly for instance on page 401. I lack ground for speculation; Tao Jiang may intend the discriminating reader to recall Goldin's self-same argument.

Arguing as to the three elements, recalled by Tao Jiang, although Shen Dao discusses other concepts as including human dispositions and professional virtues, Korean scholar Soon-Ja Yang (2010) similarly considers Shen Dao's focus to be fa, not shi. Soon Ja Yang says: "Han Fei quotes Shen Dao not because Shen Dao focused on the concept of shi, but because it is Shen Dao who pointed out that political power or authority takes precedence over individual capabilities in achieving political control." Soon-Ja Yang comes to the conclusion that they were all focused on fa.

Soon-Ja Yang takes the absence of shu technique from Creel's Shen Buhai fragments much more seriously. Although contrary Han Fei as a philosophical inheritor, opposing Han Fei she argues for a more Confucian-Legalist Shen Buhai. Glossing shu numbers as standards, based in the Confucian rectification of names she takes fa as law rather than method, in the form of a universal registry. Along with numbers as standards and the relevant component of names, it still includes fa standards as key notion. Although if true Shen Buhai's administration would be considerably expanded, and not adopting it's argument, Tao Jiang comes to the conclusion that it supports rather than harms Creel, with Shen Buhai still focused on an impartial administration. Tao Jiang recalls Creel with fa as coming to represent law, administrative method, and even managerial technique (shu) as covering the bulk of the fajia's thought.

• Pines, Yuri, "Legalism in Chinese Philosophy", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2023 Edition), Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman (eds.),

1. Defining the Fa tradition. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2023/entries/chinese-legalism/

• Tao Jiang 2021. p235,237,241,267
• Soon-Ja Yang 2013. p49.
• Creel, What Is Taoism?, 79-91,93.*
• Creel, Shen Pu-hai, 119-124

Huang Kejian 2016

Huang Kejian would not appear to be presently discussed in western scholarship, nor does his bibliography appear to reference either western or eastern sources on the direct subject. While I don't fault him for limited discussion by the the west, he limits our ability to correlate him with it. While I question the legitimacy of including him, aspects of his analysis are suitable when combines for instance with Schwarz's commentary on fa as law, along with adjunct moral commentary.

Huang suggests a smorgasbord of influences. He espouses the archaic three philosophers and three separate elements preceding Han Fei. Despite correctly interpreting fa as Mohists in root, he simply divides it's components into two, with fa as "only aimed to limit subjects from acting contrary to the law". He takes its secondary function as anti-ministerial. Shu is addressed as a seperate subject, for an admittedly interesting analysis.

Having made a Feng Youlan three elements scheme, and accepting fa as Mohist in root, his reduction of fa into amoral law and anti-ministerialism can suggest the can suggest influence of both the Legalist literature and Hansen. if he read it, but it isn't required. Although the three elements view is certainly archaic even in China, even in the west, an old-school amoral perception of the Qin precedes legal positivist "analysis".

The enjoyable aspect of Huang Kejian's analysis firstly takes the potential of the Early Legalists as limited by their managerial potential. Comparing with Roman justice, Huang Kejian presents a deficiency in the moral dimension as a contributor to the limited potential of Fa for law, attributing this to its essence as Mohist measurement. He takes Shen Buhai and Shen Dao as making an "odd" turn towards Huang-Lao (proto)Daoism, whose doubtful pre-Han evidences the west takes more critically. However, Chinese scholar Peng He (2014) for instance also engages in Daoist theory through the directly referenced medium of Sima Qian's Shiji.

melbourne asia review free online article

Lachlan Thomas-Walters. The complexities of translating legal terms: Understanding Fa (法) and the Chinese concept of law
https://melbourneasiareview.edu.au/the-complexities-of-translating-legal-terms-understanding-fa-%E6%B3%95-and-the-chinese-concept-of-law/

   Date: May 13, 2021   |
   DOI: 10.37839/MAR2652-550X6.18   |
   Edition: Edition 6, 2021

This article explores the relationship between fa (法) and law and argues that the cultural, social, and historical characteristics of the two terms make translation problematic. Although the modern use of fa in China overlaps significantly with law, this article seeks to show that the denotation of fa is considerably narrower than law. By analyzing the complex development of fa, it will be argued the differences between the Western concept of law and the Chinese concept of fa, are such that translation of fa to law can be misleading in certain contexts, and exacerbate cultural, societal and legal misunderstanding.

Western jurisprudence has long held the intrinsic duality of law and morality, with many natural law theorists conceptualising law and morality as being virtually inseparable. Thus, not only does the western conception of law in the positive sense represent rules promulgated by a higher authority to govern society, it also forms the moral compass of humanity; informing right and wrong, codifying ethics, and enshrining principles of righteousness and justice. In contrast, commentators have noted that China has ‘traditionally held the law in low esteem’ and never viewed legal rules as sacrosanct, or as the ethical and moral basis upon which society should be established. These assumptions of Chinese legal theory led early commentators, such as French jurist and philosopher Montesquieu, to mistakenly describe China as ‘a despotic state, whose principle is fear’.

Chinese legal tradition and the etymology of Fa

Chinese law can be traced back as far as 2700 B.C, and has had a lasting impact on Asian legal systems. The obstacles in comparative studies between Chinese and Western legal systems are most eloquently stated by Xin Ren, who argues the complexity of more than 2,000 years of classical Chinese literature and differences in legal texts are such that academic enquiry is plagued with methodological issues, erroneous conclusions, presuppositions, inadequate translation and misunderstanding: ‘formidable difficulties…such as the equivalent meaning of a legal term, the synonymous meanings of multiple terms, and the lack of equivalent and appropriate words in Western languages to translate a legal concept precisely’.

The ancient character for fa (法), 灋, is interesting for several reasons and can help to understand some of the key differences between the scope of both fa and law. The character can be analysed by splitting it into its written components. For instance, the left part 氵is the radical (a graphical component of a Chinese character) meaning water, while the right side is a combination of the character廌 (zhi) referring to the mythical animal xiezhi 解廌, famous for its ability to determine guilt or innocence, and the character 去 (qu) meaning to go or ‘to remove’. The earliest known definition of 灋 (fa) is found in the ancient Han dynasty Shuo-wen dictionary 说文解字 (A.D. 100) where the character is described as: ‘Fa: was punishment, leveled as even as water, zhi would strike those who are not upright and remove them’

It is generally accepted that the radical for water, found in the classical character of fa, connotes the idea of equality before the law; however, renowned Chinese jurist Cai Shuheng argued the interpretation was ‘erroneously added by unlearned men of later generations’ and is unreliable in forming the basis of etymological understanding. Congruently, Liang contends that the ‘the meaning of water is not symbolic but purely functional’, and was added to reflect the ancient punishment of exile which would involve criminals being placed on water and left to float downstream. Thus, fa as a legal concept did not encompass concepts of ethics or legal norms, but rather placed emphasis on punishment.

Dutch scholar Hulsewe in his translation of Qin Dynasty legal codes (3rd Century B.C.), argued the character fa (法), in some contexts, was almost certainly a loan word for fei (废) meaning to ‘remove from office’, as he argues fa, meaning ‘law or norm’, did not appear in Qin Dynasty legislation. Indeed, throughout imperial China, the concept of fa is intrinsically linked to punishment or xing (刑). This is substantiated by Chinese legal scholar Tao Xipu who contends that criminal law and civil law were virtually indistinguishable in the ancient law of obligations, and aligns with many Western scholars who place emphasis on the penal nature of early Chinese law. Amongst such scholarship is renowned sinologist Benjamin Schwartz, who writes ‘as a supplementary means for social control the word fa (law) is more a synonym of the word punishment, with its first and primary meaning as penal law’. This distinction is important for a number of reasons. First, it tends to substantiate fa as a legal concept inextricably linked to punishment, with rules established to maintain social order. Second, unlike the Western notion of law, fa traditionally did not encapsulate nature, morality, ethics, and justice, but was rather the legal term used for rules which formed objective standards of conduct.

Legalist influence on Fa: Narrow in both denotation and application

As compared to the Western notion of law, fa as a legal concept is considerably narrower in both application and denotation. Fa has been described by sinologists Derk Bodde and Clarence Morris as ‘a generic term for positive or written law as an abstraction…fa is a model or standard imposed by superior authority, to which the people must conform’. While fa connotes a set of rules promulgated by a ruler, a system of governance and civil obedience, as well as a set of punishments designed to control ‘man’s selfish nature’, this only forms part of a complex linguacultural puzzle. Nowadays, fa is most commonly translated to law, however this can be misleading as several Chinese legal concepts found in jurisprudence and philosophy, namely, Legalism and Confucianism, are intertwined to form the basis of Chinese law. As such, fa only forms part of a dense legal riddle. This is eloquently stated by Lee and Lai who write:

‘Fa, although it has been translated as “law”, is actually much narrower in scope. It is chiefly associated with the Legalist school of Han Fei-tze’

Legalism, or fajia 法家, popularised by the works of Han Feizi (280 B.C.), reached its zenith in the Qin Dynasty. Han Feizi believed in equality before the law and argued for what he called the ‘two handles’, namely punishment and favour, believing they could be balanced to create social order and control, writing: ‘the law no more makes exceptions for men of high station than the plumb line bends to accommodate a crooked place in the wood. What the law has decreed the wise man cannot dispute nor the brave man contest’.

As such, Legalists believed in governance through punishment, which led Chinese legal scholars to describe the legalist idea of governance as one of xingzhi (刑治), ruling through a combination of both order and violence. The success of the ruler and the protection of the state depended on harsh punishments, and as such ‘condone[d] the subordination of morality to the practical demands of political realities’. Despite the collapse of the Qin Dynasty, the economic and political realities of China meant that a strict penal code coupled with administrative law were preserved in subsequent dynasties. While legal codification and a system of punishments was maintained, Hulsewe notes how ‘the theory of government became confucianised…the positive rules of Confucianism reinterpreted in a moral sense became the guiding principles of the state’. Thus, though the legal concept of fa continued to influence the idea of Chinese law, the definition and application of the term fa only encompasses a small part of Chinese law. The impact of Confucianism As scholars such as Burton Watson have colourfully argued, classical Legalist and Confucian conceptualisations of law were so diametrically opposed that they were ‘utterly unreconcilable…whirl[ing] about in space like fiercely opposing windmills’. In fact, the Confucian idea of law and morality would come to dominate ancient Chinese legal codes and have a lasting influence on Chinese law today. Thus, any analysis of the Chinese concept of law would be incomplete without discussing the interaction between the Legalist concept of fa (法) and the Confucian concept of li (礼).

The writings of Confucius have undoubtedly had a profound impact on the development of Chinese culture, society, ethics, and law. Confucius believed that adherence to li was the basis upon which people should be regulated, and the most powerful mechanism for cultivating virtue and creating a harmonious and moral society. Li has been translated as courtesy, virtue, propriety, rites, ritual, and even law, and was ‘a code of conduct [and] the just and benevolent methods by which government should be conducted’. Many scholars compare li to notion of ‘natural law’, describing it as a theory of ‘natural li’ whereby ethical principles, rather than punishment, would form the basis of ethical society, human interactions, family relations, and governance. Confucius in The Analects writes:

‘Govern the people by regulations, keep order among them by chastisements, and they will flee from you, and lose all respect. Govern them by moral force, keep order among them by ritual [li] and they keep their self-respect and come to you of their own accord.

Scholar Tung-Tsu Chu argues that the single most significant legal development in China before the 20th Century was the ‘Confucianization of the law’; despite the seemingly incongruent nature of li and fa they would combine to form the foundation of Chinese law, as the enforcement of li was ‘simultaneously sustained by both social and legal sanctions’. Therefore, Chinese history of legal codification can be categorised by the continued symbiosis of both li and fa with Tang, Song and even the Mongol Yuan Dynasty maintaining Confucian values and norms in legal instruments. The long-lasting nature of China’s dynastic legal codes led leading scholars such as Brian McKnight to argue that the continuity and success of codification was in the effective balance of both substantive and procedural law, as well as the underlying normative justification of rules. Therefore, as Chinese law continued to develop fa only occupied a part of law in China. The concepts of law: a complex ideological puzzle

Legalist and Confucian ideology continues to influence the Chinese concept of law and justice. Australian scholar Delia Lin, argues how the Chinese concept of yi (义), or justice, in China can be split into ‘High Justice’ and ‘Low Justice’. High Justice being the moral supremacy of the ruler, and Low Justice being the fair treatment of the people. Lin claims that fa is separate from the idea of justice.

fa only occupies a part of what makes up Chinese law.

The denotative meaning of fa is considerably narrower than law. As such, I contend that uncritically translating fa directly to law may fail to recognize the complexity of Chinese jurisprudence, and may lead to social, cultural and legal misunderstanding.

It is hoped that through utilizing the field of translation to shed light on the significant conceptual and denotative differences between fa and law, this article may help overcome translation problems arising out of cross-cultural and inter-disciplinary misunderstanding. More research is needed in the field of translation to help identify the extent to which terminological barriers hamper comparative legal study between China and the West.

Shang Yang

Terracotta Army

Hailing from Wei, as Prime Minister of the State of Qin, Shang Yang (390–338 BCE) engaged in a "comprehensive plan to eliminate the hereditary aristocracy". Drawing boundaries between private factions and the central, royal state, he took up the cause of meritocratic appointment, stating "Favoring one's relatives is tantamount to using self-interest as one's way, whereas that which is equal and just prevents selfishness from proceeding."

As the first of his accomplishments, historiographer Sima Qian accounts Shang Yang as having divided the populace into groups of five and ten, instituting a system of mutual responsibility tying status entirely to service to the state. It rewarded office and rank for martial exploits, going as far as to organize women's militias for siege defense.

The second accomplishment listed is forcing the populace to attend solely to agriculture (or women cloth production, including a possible sewing draft) and recruiting labour from other states. He abolished the old fixed landholding system (fengjian) and direct primogeniture, making it possible for the people to buy and sell (usufruct) farmland, thereby encouraging the peasants of other states to come to Qin. The recommendation that farmers be allowed to buy office with grain was apparently only implemented much later, the first clear-cut instance in 243 BCE. Infanticide was prohibited.

Shang Yang deliberately produced equality of conditions amongst the ruled, a tight control of the economy, and encouraged total loyalty to the state, including censorship and reward for denunciation. Law as such was what the sovereign commanded, and this meant absolutism, but it was an absolutism of Fa (administrative standards) as impartial and impersonal, which Gongsun discouraged arbitrary tyranny or terror as destroying.

Emphasizing knowledge of the Fa among the people, he proposed an elaborate system for its distribution to allow them to hold ministers to it. He considered it the most important device for upholding the power of the state. Insisting that it be made known and applied equally to all, he posted it on pillars erected in the new capital. In 350, along with the creation of the new capital, a portion of Qin was divided into thirty-one counties, each "administered by a (presumably centrally appointed) magistrate". This was a "significant move toward centralizing Ch'in administrative power" and correspondingly reduced the power of hereditary landholders.

Shang Yang considered the sovereign to be a culmination in historical evolution, representing the interests of state, subject and stability. Objectivity was a primary goal for him, wanting to be rid as much as possible of the subjective element in public affairs. The greatest good was order. History meant that feeling was now replaced by rational thought, and private considerations by public, accompanied by properties, prohibitions and restraints. In order to have prohibitions, it is necessary to have executioners, hence officials, and a supreme ruler. Virtuous men are replaced by qualified officials, objectively measured by Fa. The ruler should rely neither on his nor his officials' deliberations, but on the clarification of Fa. Everything should be done by Fa, whose transparent system of standards will prevent any opportunities for corruption or abuse.

Shen Buhai

Han state bronze candle holder

Creel considered Shen Buhai (400–337 BCE), Chancellor of the Hann state, whose philosophy he dubbed administrative, to have played a greater, if not "outstanding role in the creation of the traditional Chinese system of government". He takes the "immensely important contribution" of the ruler's role stemming "principally" from him, and not at all from Shang Yang. Apart from Shang Yang's doctrine of penalties, mutual spying, and denouncement among ministers, Han Fei recommends the ruler protect himself through the careful employment of doctrines that had been recommended by Shen Buhai.

The Huainanzi states that Han's officials lacked coherence, leading to the creation of the 'Books on Xing-Ming.' Han Fei criticizes Shen for not unifying Fa, reward or punishment, but what Shen appears to have realized is that the remnants of feudal government, or merely "getting together a group of 'good men'", could not be mixed with the control of a qualified bureaucracy.

Shen's "cardinal principle" is selecting officials based on their abilities and achievements (xingming). The "routine functions"(Shen) of government business are carried out "entirely by the officials", and Shen insists that ministers "must have nothing to do with functions that were not assigned to them.", according to Creel

Unlike Shang Yang, Shen sees the ruler abstractly, as simply the head of a bureaucracy, and who need not necessarily be the monarch. Creel's modernizing interpretation sees Shen's ruler as a "majestic arbiter" with a "team" of ministers, firmly but unobtrusively controlled by a number of techniques. The ruler does not often speak, act, or flaunt power, with Shen himself apparently sometimes declining to give opinions on important matters of state. The ruler occupies himself with larger matters, principles or policies. Shen emphasizes a discreet, informed, independent evaluation of ministers and their reports, using the same operational method (Fa) as others of the Fajia to measure and categorize information.

Well aware of the possibility of the loss of the ruler's position, and thus state or life, from said officials, Shen says:

One who murders the ruler and takes his state ... does not necessarily climb over difficult walls or batter in barred doors or gates. He may be one of the ruler's own ministers, gradually limiting what the ruler sees, restricting what he hears, getting control of his government and taking over his power to command, possessing the people and seizing the state.

Creel elaborates that unlike Han Fei, Shen still required a strong ruler at the center, emphasizing that without impeding his ministers he must neither trust nor allow any one minister to gain too much power. Ideally, Shen's ruler had the widest possible sovereignty, was intelligent (if not a sage), had to make all crucial decisions himself, and had unlimited control of the bureaucracy.

Following after proposals

Han Fei calls the doctrine of Shen Buhai Shu, or Technique, and describes it as concerned "almost exclusively" with selecting and governing capable ministers, checking performances, and holding power "in his own hands". However, the fragments do not use the term, using (shu) numbers instead. Creel believed shu technique originally had the sense of numbers, as in statistical or categorizing methods, with record-keeping in financial management a measure of accomplishment. Command of finance is generally held by the head of government from the beginning of the Zhou dynasty dating to 800 BCE. The practice of annual accounting solidified by the Warring States period and budgeting by the first century BCE.

With Han Fei and Sima Qian as precedent, Liu Xiang wrote that Shen advised the ruler of men use Shu ('technique') rather than punishment, emphasizing the scrutinizing of achievement to give reward and select capable ministers. He describes describes Shen's doctrines as concerned almost exclusively with personnel management and the monopolization of power, namely the "ruler's role and the methods by which he may control a bureaucracy", controlling relations between ruler and minister, which he characterized as Wu Wei, leaving ministerial duties to ministers.

Liu Xiang says that "Shen Buhai's book says a ruler of men ought to use technique rather than punishment, relying on yin hsun to 'supervise and hold responsible' (tu tse) his ministers and subordinates; his holding responsible is very strict. Therefore his doctrine is called shu (method)." And another translation; "Master Shen writings say that the lord of men should grasp shu and do away with punishments, and yinxun in order to supversive and hold responsible his vassals and subordinates."

Literally meaning "to follow after" or imitate, Creel (1970) translates yin hsun (modern: yinxun) as relying on going along with, but confusingly shortens it to relying on persuasion. Goldin quotes Shen as famous for the dictum, "The Sage ruler relies on method (Fa) and does not rely on wisdom; he relies on technique, not on persuasions." Yinxun, Goldin says, is classically associated with Shen Buhai:

The Zhushu (Shu or Techniques of the ruler), or ninth chapter chapter of the Han dynasty Huainanzi, describes Yinxun as "to follow and comply, and delegate responsibilities to one's subordinates." In line with Shen, its primary subject is refraining from the utilization of one's own abilities to co-opt those of the populace, utilizing their eyes and ears instead of his. Completely unmoving, he recognizes the particular talents of his subjects, retaining control over the earth.

Shu (later narratives)

In the Guanzi the artisan's Shu is explicitly compared to that of the good ruler. The History of the Han (Han Shu) lists texts for Shu as devoted to "calculation techniques" and "techniques of the mind", and describes the Warring States period as a time when the shu arose because the complete Dao had disappeared.

The Han dynasty Lunheng says: "People themselves possess the knowledge to deceive others, but when they are to persuade rulers they need a special art (shu) to motivate the superiors--just as super men (commanders) themselves possess a powerful braveness that inspires awe in others."

Another example of Shu is Chuan-shu, or "political maneuvering". The concept of Ch'uan, or "weighing" figures in Legalist writings from very early times. It also figures in Confucian writings as at the heart of moral action, including in the Mencius and the Doctrine of the Mean. Weighing is contrasted with "the standard". Life and history often necessitate adjustments in human behavior, which must suit what is called for at a particular time. It always involves human judgement. A judge that has to rely on his subjective wisdom, in the form of judicious weighing, relies on Ch'uan. The Confucian Zhu Xi, who was notably not a restorationist, emphasized expedients as making up for incomplete standards or methods.

One of the narratives or sayings of Shen Buhai is the ruler being an axis causing the ministers to advance like the spokes of a wheel, so that no one minister gains supremacy. The ruler must be able to access all senior ministers, and not trust any single minister. The general cultural relevance and political connection with the axis and wheel is astronomy related; "Imperial majesty corresponded, not to a legislating creator, but to a polar star, the focal point of universal ever-moving pattern and harmony not made with hands, even those of God." In Confucianism the Emperor, serving as a bridge between heaven and earth, is compared to the pole star, who remains motionless while all others move around him.

Zhuangzi calls "the view from nowhere" the "hinge of daos", or dao-shu, a nonpurposive perspective preceding language, or "view from the axis of daos"(Hansen) from which anything can be said. Speech then leads to particular daos. Hsu Kai (920–974 AD) calls Shu a branch in, or components of, the great Dao, likening it to the spokes on a wheel. He defines it as "that by which one regulates the world of things; the algorithms of movement and stillness". Mastery of techniques was a necessary element of sagehood.

Xing-Ming/Ming-shih

"The Way of Listening is to be giddy as though soused. Be dumber and dumber. Let others deploy themselves, and accordingly, I shall know them."

Right and wrong whirl around him like spokes on a wheel, but the sovereign does not complot. Emptiness, stillness, non-action—these are the characteristics of the Way. By checking and comparing how it accords with reality, [one ascertains] the "performance" of an enterprise.

Han Fei

Detail of The Spinning Wheel, by Chinese artist Wang Juzheng, Northern Song Dynasty (960–1279)

In the Han Dynasty secretaries of government who had charge of the records of decisions in criminal matters were called Xing-Ming, which Sima Qian (145 or 135 – 86 BCE) and Liu Xiang (77–6 BCE) attributed to the doctrine of Shen Buhai (400 – c. 337 BCE). Liu Xiang defines Shen Buhai's doctrine as Xing-Ming, as Sima Tan and Sima Qian had (less accurately) for the Fajia more generally before him. Its meaning was so completely lost as to have previously been translated as criminal law by JJL Duyvendak, translator for the 1928 Book of Lord Shang.

With Shen's fragments quoted as saying the ruler practices Xing-Ming while lacking punishment, and an apparent absence of the doctrine or practice of uniform reward and punishment in his state, Creel found it highly unlikely that Shen was employed them. Liu Xiang and Creel associate its practice in Qin and Han times as denoting a "system for the organization and control" of official corps, comparing title and performance, and "emphasizing the high position of superiors"(Creel), or as Liu Xiang says, ""honoring the ruler and humbling the minister, exalting superiors and curbing inferiors."

Shen actually used an older, more philosophically common equivalent, ming-shi, (simplified Chinese: 名实; traditional Chinese: 名實; pinyin: míngshí) linking the "Legalist doctrine of names" with the 200-year name and reality (ming shi) debates of the school of names – another school evolving out of the Mohists. But the earliest literary occurrence for Xing-Ming, in the Zhan Guo Ce, is also in reference to the school of names.

Ming-shi discussions are prominent in the Han Feizi, and Dong Zhongshu's writings on "personnel testing and control" still use Ming-shi instead of Xing-Ming, in a manner "hardly distinguishable" from the Han Feizi,(Creel) although advocating against punishments.

Ming ("name") sometimes has the sense of speech – so as to compare the statements of an aspiring officer with the reality of his actions – or reputation, again compared with real conduct (xing "form" or shi "reality").

Shen Buhai's personnel control, or rectification of names (such as titles) worked thereby for "strict performance control" (Hansen) correlating claims, performances and posts. It would become a central tenant of both Legalist statecraft and its Huang-Lao derivatives. Rather than having to look for "good" men, ming-shi or xing-ming can seek the right man for a particular post, though doing so implies a total organizational knowledge of the regime.

More simply though, it can allow ministers to "name" themselves through accounts of specific cost and time frame, leaving their definition to competing ministers. Claims or utterances "bind the speaker to the realization a job (Makeham)." This was the doctrine, with subtle differences, favoured by Han Fei. Favoring exactness, it combats the tendency to promise too much. The correct articulation of Ming is considered crucial to the realization of projects.

Suggesting an earlier, fifth century origin for the Sunzi, Robin Yates suggests Xing-Ming derives from the use of military flags and pennants in war, as in a "concrete method" of military organization. If his dating is correct, it places the origin of Xing-Ming more in the military, only later being adopted by the officials. Not presently addressing the matter, Tao Jiang defers to the consensus view placing the Sunzi in the mid fourth century B.C.. He does suggests that chapter 10 of the Shangjunshu has the Sunzi in mind, although differing considerably in views.

Wu wei (inaction)

Zhaoming mirror frame, Western Han dynasty

Further information: Wu wei

Shen Buhai's ruler plays no active role in governmental functions. He should not use his talent even if he has it. Not using his own skills, he is better able to secure the services of capable functionaries. Creel argues that not getting involved in details allowed Shen's ruler to "truly rule", because it leaves him free to supervise the government without interfering, maintaining his perspective.

What Creel noted as Wu Wei's Confucian variation meant that ministers carry out all the functions. The (qualified) non-action of the ruler ensures his power and the stability of the polity. Although less antagonistic than his Han Fei, Shen still believed that the ruler's most able ministers are his greatest danger, and is convinced that it is impossible to make them loyal without techniques. Shen Buhai argued that if the government were organized and supervised relying on proper method (Fa), the ruler need do little – and must do little, portraying the ruler as putting up a front to hide his dependence on his advisors.

Aside from hiding the ruler's weaknesses, Shen's ruler, therefore, makes use of method (Fa) ("Shu") in secrecy. Even more than with Han Fei, the strategies of Shen Buhai's ruler are a closely guarded secret, aiming for a complete independence that challenges "one of the oldest and most sacred tenets of Confucianism", that of respectfully receiving and following ministerial advice.

Creel explains: "The ruler's subjects are so numerous, and so on alert to discover his weaknesses and get the better of him, that it is hopeless for him alone as one man to try to learn their characteristics and control them by his knowledge ... the ruler must refrain from taking the initiative, and from making himself conspicuous – and therefore vulnerable – by taking any overt action."

Shen Buhai solves the problem of defining the terms of a job through Wu wei, or not getting involved, making an official's words his own responsibility, saying, "The ruler controls the policy, the ministers manage affairs. To speak ten times and ten times be right, to act a hundred times and a hundred times succeed – this is the business of one who serves another as minister; it is not the way to rule."

Creel considers the "conception of the ruler's role as a supreme arbiter", who maintains power while leaving details to ministers, to have a "deep influence on the theory and practice of Chinese monarchy". Playing a "crucial role in the promotion of the autocratic tradition", what is termed wu wei (or 'inaction') would become the political theory of the fajia, if not becoming their general term for political strategy.

Following Shen Buhai strongly advocated by Han Fei, during the Han dynasty up until the reign of Emperor Wu of Han, rulers confined their activity "chiefly to the appointment and dismissal of his high officials", a plainly Legalist practice inherited from the Qin dynasty.

Lacking any metaphysical connotation, Shen used the term Wu wei to mean that the ruler, though vigilant, should not interfere with the duties of his ministers, acting through administrative method. Shen says:

The ruler is like a mirror, reflecting light, doing nothing, and yet, beauty and ugliness present themselves; (or like) a scale establishing equilibrium, doing nothing, and yet causing lightness and heaviness to discover themselves. (Administrative) method (Fa) is complete acquiescence. (Merging his) personal (concerns) with the public (weal), he does not act. He does not act, and yet as a result of his non-action (wuwei) the world brings itself to a state of complete order.

Though espousing an ultimate inactive end, the term does not appear in the Book of Lord Shang, ignoring it as an idea for control of the administration.

Yin (passive mindfulness)

Adherence to the use of technique in governing requires the ruler not engage in any interference or subjective consideration. Sinologist John Makeham explains: "assessing words and deeds requires the ruler's dispassionate attention; (yin is) the skill or technique of making one's mind a tabula rasa, non-committaly taking note of all the details of a man's claims and then objectively comparing his achievements of the original claims."

A commentary to the Records of the Grand Historian quotes a now-lost book with Shen Buhai saying: "By employing (yin), 'passive mindfulness', in overseeing and keeping account of his vassals, accountability is deeply engraved." The Guanzi similarly says: "Yin is the way of non-action. Yin is neither to add to nor to detract from anything. To give something a name strictly on the basis of its form – this is the Method of yin."

Yin also aimed at concealing the ruler's intentions, likes and opinions. Shen advises the ruler to keep his own counsel, hide his motivations and conceal his tracks in inaction, availing himself of an appearance of stupidity and insufficiency.

If the ruler's intelligence is displayed, men will prepare against it; If his lack of intelligence is displayed, they will delude him. If his wisdom is displayed, men will gloss over (their faults); if his lack of wisdom is displayed, they will hide from him. If his lack of desires is displayed, men will spy out his true desires; if his desires are displayed, they will tempt him. Therefore (the intelligent ruler) says "I cannot know them; it is only by means of non-action that I control them."

Said obscuration was to be achieved together with the use of Method (Fa). Not acting himself, he can avoid being manipulated.

Shen Dao

Iron weight dated from 221 BCE with 41 inscriptions written in seal script about standardizing weights and measures during the 1st year of Qin dynasty "Where there is a scale, people cannot deceive others about weight; where there is a ruler, people cannot deceive others about length; and where there is Fa, people cannot deceive others about one's words and deeds." Shen Dao

Mold for making banliang coins

Graham characterizes Shen Dao (350 – c. 275 BCE) as a theoretician of centralized power. He argued for Wu wei in a similar manner to Shen Buhai, saying

The Dao of ruler and ministers is that the ministers labour themselves with tasks while the prince has no task; the prince is relaxed and happy while the ministers bear responsibility for tasks. The ministers use all their intelligence and strength to perform his job satisfactorily, in which the ruler takes no part, but merely waits for the job to be finished. As a result, every task is taken care of. The correct way of government is thus.

Shen Dao also espouses an impersonal administration in much the same sense as Shen Buhai, and in contrast with Shang Yang emphasizes the use of talent and the promotion of ministers, saying that order and chaos are "not the product of one man's efforts". Along this line, however, he challenges the Confucian and Mohist esteem and appointment of worthies as a basis of order, pointing out that talented ministers existed in every age.

Taking it upon himself to attempt a new, analytical solution, Shen advocated fairness as a new virtue, eschewing appointment by interview in favour of a mechanical distribution ("the basis of fairness") with the invariable Fa apportioning every person according to their achievement. Scholar Sugamoto Hirotsugu attributes the concept of Fen, or social resources, also used by the Guanzi and Xunzi, to Shen, given a "dimensional" difference through Fa, social relationships ("yin") and division.

If one rabbit runs through a town street, and a hundred chase it, it is because its distribution has not been determined ... If the distribution has already been determined, even the basest people will not go for it. The way to control All-under-Heaven and the country lies solely in determining distribution.

The greatest function of fa ("the principle of objective judgement") is the prevention of selfish deeds and argument. However, doubting its long-term viability Shen did not exclude moral values and accepted (qualified) Confucian Li's supplementation of Fa and social relationships, though he frames Li in terms of (impersonal) rules.

The state has the li of high and low rank, but not a li of men of worth and those without talent. There is a li of age and youth, but not of age and cowardice. There is a li of near and distant relatives, but no li of love and hate.

For this reason he is said to "laugh at men of worth" and "reject sages", his order relying not on them but on the Fa.

Linking fa to the notion of impartial objectivity associated with universal interest, and reframing the language of the old ritual order to fit a universal, imperial and highly bureaucratized state, Shen cautions the ruler against relying on his own personal judgment, contrasting personal opinions with the merit of the objective standard, or fa, as preventing personal judgements or opinions from being exercised. Personal opinions destroy Fa, and Shen Dao's ruler therefore "does not show favouritism toward a single person".

When an enlightened ruler establishes [gong] ("duke" or "public interest"), [private] desires do not oppose the correct timing [of things], favoritism does not violate the law, nobility does not trump the rules, salary does not exceed [that which is due] one's position, a [single] officer does not occupy multiple offices, and a [single] craftsman does not take up multiple lines of work ... [Such a ruler] neither overworked his heart-mind with knowledge nor exhausted himself with self-interest (si), but, rather, depended on laws and methods for settling matters of order and disorder, rewards and punishments for deciding on matters of right and wrong, and weights and balances for resolving issues of heavy or light ...

It is said: "When the great lord relies on fa and does not act personally, affairs are judged in accordance with (objective) method (fa)." The benefit of fa is that each person meets his reward or punishment according to his due, and there are no further expectations of the lord. Thus resentment does not arise and superiors and inferiors are in harmony. If the lord of men abandons method (Fa) and governs with his own person, then penalties and rewards, seizures and grants, will all emerge from the lord's mind. If this is the case, then those who receive rewards, even if these are commensurate, will ceaselessly expect more; those who receive punishment, even if these are commensurate, will endlessly expect more lenient treatment... people will be rewarded differently for the same merit and punished differently for the same fault. Resentment arises from this.

Although Sinologist Creel (1970:63) believed that Shen had the same sort of administrative idea denoted by Shen Buhai's Xing-Ming, he notes that he does not use the term.

Doctrine of position (shi)

The people of Qi have a saying – "A man may have wisdom and discernment, but that is not like embracing the favourable opportunity. A man may have instruments of husbandry, but that is not like waiting for the farming seasons." Mencius

Used in many areas of Chinese thought, shi probably originated in the military field. Diplomats relied on concepts of situational advantage and opportunity, as well as techniques (shu) involving secrecy, long before the ascendancy of such concepts as sovereignty or law, and were used by kings wishing to free themselves from the aristocrats. Sun Tzu would go on to incorporate Taoist philosophy of inaction and impartiality, and Legalist punishment and rewards as systematic measures of organization, recalling Han Fei's concepts of power (shi) and techniques (shu).

Henry Kissinger's On China says: "Chinese statesmanship exhibits a tendency to view the entire strategic landscape as part of a single whole ... Strategy and statecraft become means of 'combative coexistence' with opponents. The goal is to manoeuvre them into weakness while building up one's own shi, or strategic position." Kissinger considers the "manoeuvring" approach an ideal, but one that ran in contrast to the conflicts of the Qin dynasty.

Like Shen Buhai, Shen Dao largely focused on statecraft (Fa). Confucian reformer Xun Kuang discusses him in this capacity, never referencing Shen Dao in relation to power, which he attributes to Shen Buhai. Shen Dao was remembered for his theories on shi (lit. "situational advantage", but also "power" or "charisma") because Han Fei references him in this capacity. Modern scholarship is critical on the point of recalling him simply in its capacity.

Xun Kuang views military science as expressions which can be worked out rationally and systematically, albeit framing them as cultivated rituals. But in explanation as to why talent and worth do not find success, he has a saying; "If the right person does not meet with the right time, then will even one who is talented be able to succeed?"; Sinologist John Makeham suggests the earliest version of this particular line may be taken from the Analects; "The noble man is firm in hard times; when the lesser man falls on hard times, he becomes dissolute."

Graham took thrust of Han Fei's argument regarding shi to be negation of Confucianist discussions of rule by moral worth versus rule by power, which might include brigands. Neither will do the job, nor do they rule together. As quoted of Han Fei, Shi, or what Graham translates as the power-base, is not intended to refer to any single doctrine. It may have innumerable variations. It refers to power acquired spontaneously, and political order as such is not based on it, anymore than it is based on moral order. Singular men cannot institute power. Political order is not based on power. Political order is based on order, like clearly defined "laws." Power and position will at least enable the ruler to enact these.

Shen Dao on shi

Searching out the causes of disorder, Shen Dao observed splits in the ruler's authority. Although both are focused on fa as method or law, Shen Dao's theory on power echoes Shen Buhai, referenced by Xun Kuang as its originator, who says "He who (can become) singular decision-maker can become the sovereign of All under Heaven." Shen Dao's theory may have been borrowed from the Book of Lord Shang, if he received any portion of it, or in Shen Dao's abandonment of a singular fa, or Standard, as correct.

For Shen Dao, "Power" (勢 shi) refers to the ability to compel compliance. (Shi's) merit is that it prevents people from fighting each other; political authority is justified and essential on this basis. Shen Dao says: "When All under Heaven lacks the single esteemed [person], then there is no way to carry out the principles [of orderly government, li 理]. ... Hence the Son of Heaven is established for the sake of All under Heaven ... All under Heaven is not established for the sake of the Son of Heaven ..."

Talent cannot be displayed without power. Shen Dao says: "The flying dragon rides on the clouds and the rising serpent wanders in the mists. But when the clouds disperse and the mists clear up, the dragon and the serpent become the same as the earthworm and the large winged black ant because they have lost what they ride." Leadership is not a function of ability or merit, but is given by some process, such as giving a leader to a group. "The ruler of a state is enthroned for the sake of the state; the state is not established for the sake of the prince. Officials are installed for the sake of their offices; offices are not established for the sake of officials ..."

While to some extent moral capability is disregarded among the fa thinkers, Shen Dao considers it useful in terms of authority. If the ruler is inferior but his command is practiced, it is because he is able to get support from people. But his ideas otherwise constitute a "direct challenge" to Confucian virtue. Virtue is unreliable because people have different capacities. Both morality together with intellectual capability are insufficient to rule, while position of authority is enough to attain influence and subdue the worthy, making virtue "not worth going after".

Han Feizi

To quote the Han Feizi in brief on shi directly, it's discussion is a dialectic of critics.

The philosopher (Shen Dao) considered position sufficiently reliable for governing officials and people. (His Confucian) critic said that you had to depend on (moral) worthies for political order. As a matter of truth, neither side is reasonable enough. Shi's species cover innumerable varieties. The shih on which I am talking is the shih created by man. Though I do not deny the success of Yao and Shun, I do assert that shi is not what one man alone can create.

As a matter of fact, most rulers in the world form a continuous line of average men. It is for the average rulers that I speak about shi. Yao and Shun as well as Chieh and Chow appear once in a thousand generations. The average rulers neither come up to the worthiness of Yao and Shun nor reach down to the wickedness of Chieh and Chow. If they uphold the law and make use of their august position, order obtains; if they discard the law and desert their august position, chaos prevails... But that shi is worth employing, is evident. If you discard position and act contrary to law, waiting for Yao and Shun to appear, then order will obtain in one out of one thousand generations of continuous chaos

Discussed often enough, the Han Feizi's essentially relegated chapter on shi can be taken as one key to the subject. Utilizing other components, at least in that regard other interpretations are possible as comparable to their broader works. The early scholarship of Arthur Waley interprets both wu wei and the chapter differently. Prior even the 1960 translation, he takes Han Fei's ruler as requiring no morals, ruling by "acquired" power, as opposed to Shen Dao's power derived simply from position, or the "mere fact of being king." Still, although shi has a variety of means to acquire influence, as including charisma, the ruler's shi at basic simply represents his power of authority.

With fa ideology relying on "perfectly designed political institutions that would accommodate mediocrities on the throne", Sinologist Yuri Pines of Standford Encyclopedia's fa Tradition modernly presents chapter 40, Objections to positional power, as explaining that a system will "attain good results precisely because it does not expect of the ruler any extraordinary qualities." Reducing the relevance of the ruler's abilities, it should cater to "average or mediocre rulers, neither moral paragons, nor monstrous tyrants". He takes the chapter as building on Shen Dao's ideas.

Han Fei and Li Si were contemporary to the end near end of the Warring States period. As not without precedent, and representing a comparative continuity, Pines quotes the Guanzi, as a late syncretic text of the period.

The sage ruler relies on laws, not on personal wisdom; on methods and not on persuasions; on impartiality and not on selfishness; on the great Way and not on trivial matters. Then, he may be at ease and All-under-Heaven will be governed well. (Guanzi 45, “Relying on law”; cf. Ricket 1998: 144)

In contrast to an earlier amoralist interpretation of the subject, namely that of the venerable A.C. Graham (1989), or the explicitly amoral, inhumane, universal impartial justice of Tao Jiang (2021), Pines work asserts a qualified morality in that "the rule by impersonal standards is not just the most effective way of overcoming personal inadequacies of the incumbents. (For the tradition) it is also the moral way, insofar as morality is represented by the principle of impartiality rather than by Confucian insistence on 'benevolence and righteousness'."

The morality of Han Fei

Although Han Fei overwhelmingly tends towards a rule by impersonal standards, Eric Hutton regards him, in chapter 40, as seeming to admit that the benevolence and righteousness of Yao and Shun can have persuasive power even in his own time. However, in part as dependent on institutions, and although strictly speaking taken as Daoistic and applied to statecraft, insomuch as Han Fei can said to give regard to virtue, it has more typically been argued that he considers wu-wei, or nonaction, it's essence, as an otherwise predominant focus for him.

In the Confucian Analects, as quoted by Han Fei's predecessor in prime minister Shen Buhai, wu wei at basic simply means to leave ministerial affairs to ministers. Although the ruler's separation enhances his charisma, ordinary people cannot normally enhance their power through wu wei. Rather, the period expects mediocre rulers to delegate. Reducing his activity, Han Fei's mediocre ruler may be able to manipulate the ministers to claim their accomplishments as glory and fame for himself. At any rate, he will be less of a burden.

Han Fei, Goldin says, does not appear to anticipate objection that his program effectively allows ministers to set the agenda.

Recalled by Pines, as opposed to Han Fei's mediocre ruler, for Xun Kuang as the purported teacher of Han Fei and Li Si, the period expects that a true or sage monarch will ensure perfect universal order and compliance, considering an unrivaled, all-powerful, universal ruler as necessary for peace. Regardless, virtue itself is insufficient. Limiting his intervention in affairs, Han Fei's ruler supposedly amasses power through fa (laws), which at least create order and stability.

In practical terms, for the ruler, authority means that he ought to hold the power to reward and punish. However, Han Fei says:

If the sovereign personally inspects his hundred officials, the whole day will not be enough; his power will not suffice. Moreover, when the superior uses his eyesight, the underlings embellish what he sees; when he uses his hearing, the underlings embellish what he hears; when he uses his contemplation, the underlings multiply their words. The former kings considered these three [methods] as insufficient: hence they cast away personal abilities and relied on laws and [administrative] methods examining rewards and punishments.

Winston takes Han Fei as concerned with order, Tao Jiang justice, minimizing the amoral ruler.

Included in Winston, Han Fei recalls the laws of Gongsun Yang and the administrative method of Shen Buhai in Chapter 43. Proceeding from the collapse of the Jin to the aristocrats and ministers, although establishing the administrative method Han Fei would inherit, Shen Buhai caused confusion with an issuing of laws without repealing the older ones. Han Fei uncompromisingly opposes subversion of the law to the detriment of the people and state. Although Han Fei expects the ruler will be average, he elsewhere frequently addresses himself to the enlightened, benevolent or sage ruler. Han Fei says "If the ruler is stupid and upholds no rule, ministers will act at random", enhancing their wealth and power, and eventually breeding chaos. Han Fei's enlightened ruler will investigate order and chaos, promoting clear laws and severe penalties, even rescuing "all living beings from chaos".

Tao Jiang posits Han Fei's values for the ruler as humility and self-constraint.
Goldin takes Han Fei as concerned with his own hide, Pines the subjugation of the ruler to laws and methods.

More broadly, Han Fei's enlightened ruler busies himself with checking reports and investigating job performances, strictly adhering to fa method to reward, promote and punish. Only rewarding those who perform their jobs properly, the ruler will supposedly dominate his properly rewarded ministers, enhancing his power. Or, he will play an effective institutional role without getting in the way, exposing himself to manipulation and criticism. Han Fei does not suggest much chaos as resulting from his replacement either way. One man does not create order. Han Fei also has a chapter advising ministers to speak to the king disingenously. The enlightened ruler will avoid their traps by dispensing with his own personal abilities. Adhering to fa method, he will delegate to Han Fei and his fellow impartial institutionalists, who perform their jobs properly.

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). The qualities of a ruler, his "mental power, moral excellence and physical prowess" are irrelevant. He discards his private reason and morality, and shows no personal feelings. What is important is his method of government. Fa (administrative standards) require no perfection on the part of the ruler.

If Han Fei's use of Wu-Wei was derivative of Daoism, he nonetheless references Shen Buhai for it, and its Dao emphasizes autocracy ("Tao does not identify with anything but itself, the ruler does not identify with the ministers"). Accepting that Han Fei applies wu wei specifically to statecraft, professor Xing Lu argues that Han Fei still considered wu wei a virtue. As Han Fei says, "by virtue [de] of resting empty and reposed, he waits for the course of nature to enforce itself." As one of the works earliest chapters, Han Fei begins by advising the ruler to remain "empty and still".

Tao 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. Therefore, 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 and see if they are identical. Then the ruler will find nothing to worry about as everything is reduced to its reality.

Tao exists in invisibility; its function, in unintelligibility. Be empty and reposed and have nothing to do-Then from the dark see defects in the light. See but never be seen. Hear but never be heard. Know but never be known. If you hear any word uttered, do not change it nor move it but compare it with the deed and see if word and deed coincide with each other. Place every official with a censor. Do not let them speak to each other. Then everything will be exerted to the utmost. Cover tracks and conceal sources. Then the ministers cannot trace origins. Leave your wisdom and cease your ability. Then your subordinates cannot guess at your limitations.

The bright ruler is undifferentiated and quiescent in waiting, causing names (roles) to define themselves and affairs to fix themselves. If he is undifferentiated then he can understand when actuality is pure, and if he is quiescent then he can understand when movement is correct.

Han Fei's commentary on the Daodejing asserts that perspectiveless knowledge – an absolute point of view – but in historical terms, would represent a later writing.

Performance and title (xingming)

Han Fei was notoriously focused on what he termed 刑名; xíngmíng. Possibly referring to the drafting and imposition of standardized terms xingming 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 fulfills.

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 hsing (form/standard) and claim. 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 xingming 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 xingming 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.

The "Two Handles"

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

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. Han Fei connects his own rewards and punishments under his theory of shu ('managerial technique') in connection with xingming ('correlating performances to titles').

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 its "handles" of reward and punishment 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, with which he must be kept strictly apart. Punishment confirms his sovereignty; eliminating anyone who oversteps his boundary, regardless of intention. Fa "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 (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 laws and methods (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 Fajia 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.

discussion

Han Fei can not be a legalist text. 194.153.110.5 (talk) 12:54, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
I agree that it is primarily an managerial or Shu text as is commonly stated.FourLights (talk) 07:51, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Article issues and classification

Mainly maintenance issues

Reassess article. The B-class criteria #1 states; The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. Issues;

• "Citation needed" tags, July 2019, Feb 2022,
• "No citation" such as the 2nd paragraph in the "Later history".
• Material added "after" an inline citation such as the 2nd paragraph in The "Two Handles" subsection, that can't be determined from original research.
• Citation overkill: There are far too many instances of ref bombing and for an unknown reason. See the first two paragraphs in the "Branches of the Fajia" section. On the occasion that material might be considered "exceptional" then exceptional sources are required (not necessarily more), like BLP or controversial material. If a source is repeated multiple times it then becomes "needless repetition".
• External links: Three seems to be an acceptable number and of course, everyone has their favorite to add for four. The problem is that none is needed for article promotion.
• ELpoints #3) states: Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.
• LINKFARM states: There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.
• WP:ELMIN: Minimize the number of links. --

Your critique has been received, I will try to make time to look at the article. I am addressing citation overkill, removing unnecessary uses of Goldin's document and references to Chad Hansen's website, just referencing his books instead. I am removing some references to the Oxford where other sources are present, since it's not like anyone is challenging the Sinologist's themselves (besides them superseding each other). I suppose I can dig it up as the secondary source it is if ever needed.FourLights (talk) 09:43, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

The second paragraph of the Two Handles had the same source as the third paragraph, where the citation is located. I simply didn't double post the reference. I should however provide secondary reference. This was one of my earlier writings.FourLights (talk) 19:19, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Completed and reviewed materials

• Invention of the Fajia (split into two sections)
• Branches of the Fajia (complete, review refbomb)

Uninished

• Impersonal administration and anti-ministerialism (archived pending review of accuracy)
• Early reception as Legalists (reference reorganization, eventual reoganization into more "encyclopedic" content)
• Shang Yang remains the primary figure who needs reworking
• Review of Tao Jiang's materials

ideas

• I could probably put together a summary for the Arthashastra comparative if it was desirable, but I haven't looked it over yet.FourLights (talk) 17:16, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Under review

I've started reviewing the Shang Yang section and potential sourcesFourLights (talk) 07:37, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Article comments

• Schwarz (1985) is a counter-question to Creel. Although frankly Creel's line of interpretation makes sense to me, and he is generally the one referenced in regards Shen Buhai, I'm not aware of Schwarz line of questioning having gone anywhere. If anything, apart from what is taken to be the questionable supposition that Shen Buhai could have influenced the Daodejing, Creel's strength has increased over time.FourLights (talk) 10:50, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

More coments from – SJ +:

• Citation duplication: Many common citations are repeated rather than reused. You have 5-10 sources that should appear 20-30 times each, rather than having 100+ duplicate sources. You can indicate the page # alongside a shared cite rather than making a new cite.
• Multiple sources in one cite: these should be broken out into separate (reusable) cites
• Name duplication: whole names are duplicated, and wikilinked each time. They should generally only be linked 1 or 2 times in an article (a second time if there's a main section for them); and use only the last name (and no title). For For western names with reasonably unique last names, after their first appearance in the article, only the last name should be used.
• "NAME (YYYY) said X" as source should be converted to "NAME said X^[5]", again resuing the appropriate existing source.

I took a stab at cleaning some of this up, but it needs to be done for every author/source that recurs more than once in the article. – SJ + 01:36, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I have no reason to argue with the whole names policy if that is the policy, but for Chinese names, my understand that these are commonly not divided, because Chinese do not have "last" names, they have family names, which are commonly presented first rather than last. I have done some to address the names, but will probably have to re-read the entire article, for whose process I may very well further streamline the writing.FourLights (talk) 01:46, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I would suggest that I could use an actual discussion with regards format rather than a flyby suggestion. If you're available, we could discuss citation formatting, which I am not familiar with and which is not commonly discussed in terms of solutions. I will attempt to look at the format you are using, but I am not familiar with it technically. Even making use of it, I am not certain if my attempt to accommodate it would entirely work either. I would for instance like to be able to accommodate notes, which I myself use to keep track of things, begging the question of whether a method can include these or whether I would have to two sets of references.

Without technical assistance I am generally focused on the construction of the page in the first place as prior to seeking review again.FourLights (talk) 15:17, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Tone issues

Something needs to be done about the tone of this article. As a reminder, wikipedia is not a place for personal essays. At the moment, much of this article reads like one. The use of the word "we" for instance is not appropriate. Also, statements like "We have not yet reviewed Adventures in Chinese Realism (2022)" do not belong in a wikipedia article. I would suggest fixing some of these tonal issues before adding more reviews of the academic literature. Retinalsummer (talk) 10:36, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I will follow your principle of not using the term We and believe I have fixed this, but without additional input I would return to my regular streamlining of writing and content, reducing quoteyness, checking references, restoring content, etc. I could certainly read more about attempting to make it more formal, if you still don't believe it is, but when I checked a wikipedia article on the subject it simply referenced wikitionary. I don't know if you would still consider it informal currently.FourLights (talk) 07:55, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. When you reply on the talk page, please append a colon to the beginning of your reply. I've asked you to do this before, so if you don't understand what I mean, then don't hesitate to ask. Retinalsummer (talk) 10:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

hello, I understand it, I have only forgotten. I do not talk a lot on here.FourLights (talk) 20:59, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

new tag

Hello, regarding the tag "This article is written like a personal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay that states a Wikipedia editor's personal feelings or presents an original argument about a topic. (October 2023)"

I've looked over the article, I believe I've made it more formal. Although I am still working on the article, if there is still an issue, I could use feedback on this.FourLights (talk) 23:53, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

There is a lot of content in this article, I am deeply impressed by your reading. As someone who is fairly familiar with this period of Chinese history, at least for an American, I feel like it is a lot of work: this is meant to be a tertiary source for a general audience. A lot of this content could be split off into other articles about the various thinkers and scholars, don't you think? I have a hard time assessing it, as it is very long and dense with information. Remsense聊 15:21, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

hello, the work would have to be formalized but the figures themselves already pages I made. Eventually han Fei in particular will be expanded, while more needs to be done on shang yang as the least developed content. The work on them itself is, although probably much of itself still accurate, dated. In terms of it's length, I would suggest if nothing else contrasting it with the Confucianism and Daoism pages, while that of the Mohists is undeveloped. Certainly, it has been suggested in the past to leave the figures themselves as separate pages. I am not myself opposed, but the primary content here would have to be very solid. The Three Elements and Creel's branches are introductory sections. The Three Elements is a stub rather than a development of it's content; at least some of it's content belongs in an appendix if it is even considered desirable. I doubt it would be given its own page. Mohist interpretation is an unformalized stub prior to formal work on the subject.FourLights (talk) 01:21, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

certainly! i think the page should be long, don't get me wrong. i really want to help, could you give me a shortlist of the most important sources you're using so i can reference them while helping edit the article? :) Remsense聊 13:16, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

hello, starting from encyclopedic sources the most important thing to do is to collect a web/tree of references on the Mohists and shoehorn information into archive 4, as in particular relating with Fa; not all information on the Mohists will necessarily pertain to the Fajia. This will allow me to reorganize the article on a more encyclopedic basis. If you simply wish to read something pertaining to the article then you should read Creel's relevant papers from his What is Taoism which is available free online at archive.org.FourLights (talk) 17:24, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello, although I wouldn't expect anyone to be able to easily uphold a review of the article, just so you know, I have presently reorganized it to it's current state, which I take as more "encyclopedic". At any rate, it's based on principles that would be unveiled in the references, which I will otherwise be checking, albeit I expect to be more busy for a short time.FourLights (talk) 09:15, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

You've done a lot of worthwhile work, I'm going to post the article at various WikiProjects (namely WT:China and WT:Philosophy) to get more eyes on it. Remsense聊 13:53, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Capitalization of 法

I think it's pretty out of line with convention familiar to me—with the glaring exception, of course, of Daoism—to have fa capitalized. Is it so in most of the literature? Remsense聊 10:21, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

hello. I will check, but I am confused, is this the primary issue you posted a notice on top of the page about?FourLights (talk) 15:10, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't say so, it's a pretty easy fix for someone who cares to get deep in the weeds with a text editor like me, I'm not suggesting you pay particular attention to it. I would say the tags are for my sake as much as anything so I remember to circle around and do a copyediting pass on this article, since I really appreciate all the information you've been adding and I want it to shine as much as possible. That's what Wikipedia is all about. :) Remsense聊 18:46, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, although there is certainly more material I would like to implement soon, apart from examining Fa's punctuation, after some major reorganization I have finished the article for the day if you happen to find time to take a look. Thanks. Also, keep in mind, I have material on Fa itself on the backburner in archive 4.FourLights (talk) 22:36, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, although there will probably long be work that can be done, I hope that you will consider enjoying the section, Invention of the Fa school.FourLights (talk) 13:15, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Encyclopedification

Although the page may be empty-ish at the moment with an emptying of it's figures, whose content is to be integrated with it's pages, and a lot of with academic gloss in the later sections, I already have a vision of where to take the page on a completely categorical basis, to revive it's dead subject.FourLights (talk) 08:07, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

FourLights, I recommend you find other articles to edit and let others edit this article. You've made thousands of edits here, most of them without edit summaries, and I think this is putting off others from contributing. I would have expected after that many edits and years that this would be worthy of at least Good article status, but the content is jumbled. You may not be seeing the wood for the trees any longer. Fences&Windows 20:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

hello, there was some several years where I did not much work on the subject, and several before I started the article. The article is a jumble now because I have just restarted it; although emptier, it would be unjumbled by this evening. Previously it was the figures themselves. It has been suggested before to divy out their primary material to their individual articles, which is what I will be doing. The idea now was to make a combinational concept article instead of personages. That is, unless a conceptual article would also be too much. I admit that I spent more of this year on the subject as exploratory work. If anyone wishes to take over for a period I will cooperat, but I assure you, getting a grasp of the subject was no easy task. I do not think you would be able to find anyone willing to work on the subject; take a look at the wu wei page. I wrote it. It needs fixing, but no one works on that page either.FourLights (talk) 22:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello, although, if considered a good idea, Shang Yang is intended to be represented in concepts rather than a figure, the page is now less jumbled. Again, I can take feedback even if no one wishes to work on the page. I intended to formulate a concept pertaining to him, and it is regardless possible that some things discussed here, need not be. Otherwise, I certainly have other pages I can work on.FourLights (talk) 00:48, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

The shared concept originating in Shang Yang I was going to formulate is wealth and strength. I already know at least two works that discuss the subject, and it is prominently represented in Pines Stanford Encyclopedia. If no one else works on the page, remember the I have done, even if a lot of it was useless and exploratory, contentbe integrated into it's pages to be improved, worked on and better organized and conceptualized. I.E. assume good faith.FourLights (talk) 01:53, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

In terms of context, the article can always be re-arranged.

The next step would be to compile a Shang Yangian section on wealth and power. I otherwise intend to expand fa commentary for clarity, while keeping the more tecehnical points the fa article. Unfortunately, without additional article support, apart from implementing details it would probably be a long time before I could rectify the fa article's introduction itself for substantive academic accuracy.FourLights (talk) 08:30, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I intend to shortly create a brief commentary from Benjamin Schwarz.FourLights (talk) 06:06, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Based on tag request, I will streamline the work and reduce some detail. When needed I will have to ask for feedback, but it is not needed at this point since the work has to be done first.FourLights (talk) 09:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I will be able to update the section Earlier classification as Huang-Lao, whose history is also relevant for the Wu wei page.FourLights (talk) 11:53, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I can probably make the "Creel's branches" section "less confusing", it is likely not all of it's detail is needed. Some extra detail will be in the notes.FourLights (talk) 21:09, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Having provided some leeway for non-existent users to take over the page (I appreciate the minor edits) while I expand the Gongsun Hong pages, before proceeding with larger work, I've come up with a simple change to divide the unwieldy section Creel's branches. I am working on this currently. I've divided into a new section for expansion and intend to make the former more plain.FourLights (talk) 04:58, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

I am aware that the mid-to-late content needs work, and I still intend to make a Shang Yang related section. Integrating Shang Yang more generally will require research. After integrating school of names content into Shen Buhai, I will see about shortening it, along with addressing other sections.FourLights (talk) 07:40, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I am currently working on reviewing this.FourLights (talk) 02:36, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I will consolidate some misplaced material to better discuss Legalism. I intend to write an introductory foreward later. That should help clarify matters. Unfortuanately, while it would have addended commentary, it would be largely Creel based to start.FourLights (talk) 04:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I will be restructuring the introduction.FourLights (talk) 06:19, 23 January 2024 (UTC

I otherwise intend to expand commentary relating to Shang Yangs contributions that lasted into the Qin dynasty. This will also allow for improved restructuring FourLights (talk) 10:12, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Legalism

With the publishing of Tao Jiang in 2021 it will be possible to discuss "Legalism" in some capacity. Tao Jiang recalls Creel's acceptance of Shang Yang's as ancient China's Legalist school. Also attempting to find relevant content elsewhere, and giving notice of the discrepancies, Shang Yangs reforms can be discussed as relevant to manufacture a section.

There is some content that would be relevant, only that I probably cannot say "this is Legalism". It may even be extraordinarily difficult to find a definition of Legalism. It can only be done on an academic basis. I believe that approximately half of scholars across all time have used the term, but if we want to talk about it as a subject and not just a convention. So we will have to see if anyone else talks about it as a subject besides Tao Jiang.

But it is still possible to otherwise make a relevant discussion without simply being archaic. Only that it will be the opinion of a subset of academia, while pulling historical content from elsewhere. If we only use it as a convention for Fajia that only half of scholarship in the past, some distant past, have used, then it cannot be discussed. FourLights (talk) 11:52, 24 January 2024 (UTC)