Series on the History of Chinese Philosophy, Pt. 20
Ministers of Political Methods — From Guanzi to Hanfeizi
Like Driving Horses with Reins and Whips
--
Welcome to Part 20 of the series! The previous parts are here:
In this segment we’ll gain a view into Legalism, or Făjiā, which is the last of the four main pillars of Chinese philosophy (i.e., Ru, Dao, Mo, Fa).
Fă [法] can be translated as “law, rule, or method” and the philosophers associated with this philosophy all believed in strict laws in political affairs and cunning methods on the battlefield.
In Part 21, we’ll turn our attention to the military tradition known as Bīng Fă — or “military methods” — but for now we’ll just stick to “methods” of the throne room.
The Philosophy of Empire
It’s no stretch to consider Legalism a philosophy of empire, as its rise in prominence was due to the foothold it gained in the state of Qin. The expansion of Qin throughout the 3rd c. BCE was under-girded by Legalist ideas and resulted in the unification of the Warring States in 221 BCE.
In the philosophical arena of China’s Warring States period, Legalism was the winner.
But its victory was short-lived (the Qin dynasty lasted only 15 years) and it wasn’t necessarily due to philosophical merit as much as it was the outcome of ruthless political and military ploys carried out by a group of court advisors known later as “the ministers of methods.”
The Han historian, Sima Tian, said these men were, “Statesman interested in strict legal codes.”
Liu Xin and Feng Youlan — in their work on the “Origin of the Schools” — accounted for their genesis this way:
“Those of the Legalist school had their origin in the Ministry of Justice. They emphasized strictness in rewards and punishments, in order to support a system of correct conduct. Herein lies the strongpoint of this school” — Liu Xin
“Members of the Legalist School had their origin among the ‘men of methods’ [those who advised the feudal rulers in practical politics].” — Feng Youlan
For centuries, each Warring Sate court had employed specialists in these areas, and the Qin Legalists could trace their lineage back to the Spring and Autumn Period before Confucius… but it wasn’t until the middle of the third century that the tradition gelled into its own philosophy — mainly due to the philosophical work of a man named Hanfeizi.
The Legalist “school” generally:
- looks at the problems of the Warring States period entirely from the perspective of rulers.
- provides answers to the question, how can a ruler effectively organize and control his government so as to yield the greatest possible increase in state wealth and territory?
- assumes these goods are only meaningful when they’re under the absolute control of an autocrat.
The Founders of Legalism
Although Legalism didn’t come into its own until the end of the Warring States period, there were several much older texts that laid the foundation for what came later — including the Guănzi and the Shāng jūn shū.
The ideas presented in the Guănzi are attributed to a scholar named Guăn Zhòng, who died about century before Confucius was born and was chief aide to Duke Huan of Qi during the first Spring and Autumn hegemony (ca. 679 BCE). He made many reforms — including the registration of families, the increase of bureaucracy, and the drafting of strict legal code — that helped solidify Duke Huan’s political power.
The Guănzi was actually compiled over three-hundred years later, by scholars of the Jixia Learning Community (see below).
The overall topic of the book is statecraft, though its chapters touch on a myriad of philosophical topics and mirror the eclecticism of its Warring States milieu. It’s one of the oldest texts to contain passages reflecting Huang-Lao Daoism (the forerunner to Daoist inner-alchemy).
Robert Eno has explained why the Guanzi’s emphasis on law was so unusual for its time:
“Prior to Guan Zhong, we may assume that the common notion was that the promulgation of a law code amounted to a confession of deficient virtue on the part of the ruler. Such a confession implicitly undermined the legitimacy of the ruler and of his class.”
One of the elder scholars in the later years of the Jixia Academy was Xunzi. Two of the younger scholars at that time were Li Si and Hanfeizi, who both took employment in the court of Qin. If one connects these dots, it may be safe to say the seeds of Legalism were planted when Guanzi’s philosophy mixed with Xunzi’s regimented moral strictures and Daoist challenges to traditional styles of governing.
When the rising stars Li Si and Hanfeizi arrived at the Qin court they found a state already practicing some of the principles they had formulated at Jixia. This is largely due to the reforms put in place a century earlier by a man named Gongsun Yang, whose honorary title was Shang Yang [390–338 BCE].
Shang Yang was a native of the state of Wei and arrived in Qin in response to a talent search. He developed a large following in the Qin court and won favor with Duke Xiao of Qin through some novel proposals. Among these were the abolishment of the Qin aristocracy and the well-field system of land grants. Shang Yang argued in favor of a small meritocracy and a larger peasantry from which soldiers could be drafted. In effect, Shang’s reforms turned Qin into a bureaucratic oligarchy under which most of its citizenry were impoverished. To control the peasantry, Shang Yang instituted the following:
- All families were registered and grouped into “mutual responsibility units.”
- If one member of the group broke the law, all were punished harshly.
- Limited number of adult men per household.
- Established state control over the buying and selling of land.
- Had those who praised his reforms banished.
“Shang Yang was in power in Qin for about twenty years and during that time he made Qin into a completely new type of state… characterized by centralized administration, new systems of taxation, government management of the economy, standardization of weights and measures (a major undertaking in those times), armament of a greatly enlarged army, and, what later writers most stressed, the implementation of a brutally draconian set of laws.”
You can probably imagine how political intrigue among the scholarly class might have intensified under such philosophical commitments, and Li Si [280–208 BCE] is probably the poster child of ruthless courtly politics.
He studied under Xunzi at Jixia alongside Hanfeizi and later convinced Hanfeizi to join him in service to the Qin ruler.
When he saw the talented Hanfeizi quickly becoming the ruler’s favored advisor, he slandered his old friend. When Hanfeizi was arrested, Li Si went to him feigning compassion and offered him poison to avoid violent execution. With Hanfeizi out of the way, Li Si became the top advisor in the Qin court. Twenty years later, Li Si led the Qin efforts in mass book burnings and purgations of scholars from rival schools of thought.
A year younger than Li Si, Hanfeizi [279–233 BCE] was born into a noble family in the state of Han. In his youth he traveled to the Jixia Academy and studied with Xunzi. He introduced Daoist metaphysics into Legalism by proposing a vast web of strict laws that would permit a ruler to practice wuwei [non-action] at its center.
Again, according to Robert Eno:
“[The Hanfeizi] is the best expression of the Legalist notion that explicit codes of laws and administrative regulations and strictly applied standards for rewards and punishment are the most essential tools for effective statecraft.”
Key Passages from Legalist Texts
Here are some excerpts from the texts associated with these thinkers.
From the Guanzi [chapter 1.1] “The Concept of State”:
“If those on high exercise proper measure in dress and expenditure; the six relationships will be secure. If the four cardinal virtues prevail; the prince’s orders will be carried out… Therefore the essential component in reducing punishments is to prohibit luxury and artfulness. The primary measure for preserving the state is to promote the four cardinal virtues. The basic precepts for achieving obedience among the people are: honor the spirits; respect the mountain and river gods, revere the ancestral temples, and venerate ancestors and great men of the past.” — in Cheng & Tsui (eds.) Guanzi, Vol. 1 (2001)
From the Shang jun shu [Book of Lord Shang] — “Rewards and Punishments”:
“Punishments should know no degree or grade, but from ministers of state and generals down to great officers and ordinary folk, whoever does not obey the king’s commands, violates the interdicts of the state, or rebels against the statutes fixed by the ruler should be guilty of death and should not be pardoned. Merit acquired in the past should not cause a decrease in the punishment for demerit later, nor should good behavior in the past cause any derogation of the law for wrong done later… Colleagues who, knowing their offense, inform their superiors will themselves escape punishment… Therefore I say that if there are severe penalties that extend to the whole family, people will not dare to try [how far they can go], and as they dare not try, no punishments will be necessary…” — in De Bary and Bloom (eds.) Sources of Chinese Tradition, 2nd Edition, Vol. 1 (1999)
From the Hanfeizi:
“If we had to depend on an arrow being absolutely straight by nature, there would be no arrow in a hundred generations. If we had to depend on a piece of wood being perfectly round by nature, there would not be any wheel in a thousand generations. There is not one naturally straight arrow or naturally round piece of wood in a hundred generations, and yet in every generation people ride carriages and shoot birds. Why? Because of the application of the methods of straightening and bending. Although there is is a naturally straight arrow or a naturally round piece of wood [once in a hundred generations] which does not depend on any straightening or bending, the skilled workman does not value it. Why? Because it is not just one person who wishes to ride and not just one shot that the archer wishes to shoot. Similarly, the enlightened ruler does not value people who are naturally good and who do not depend on reward and punishment. Why? Because the laws of the state must not be neglected and government is not for only one man. Therefore the ruler who has the technique does not follow the good that happens by chance but practices the way of necessity…”
“…To try to govern the people of a chaotic age with benevolence and lenient measures is like trying to drive wild horses without reins and whips.” — in Chan, A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy (1963)
Common Core Values
Since these writings are eclectic by nature and were only retroactively considered a coherent school of thought, researchers have tried to find common themes among them.
Each suggests morality is INDEPENDENT of power, or shì [勢].
- Puts emphasis on power of the ruler, not the virtue of the person ruling. Position holds power, not the person.
- Since there were few good people to rule, a system needed to ensure average men could maintain order.
As the Guanzi states it:
“Success in government lies in following the hearts of the people… If the ruler can ensure the people their existence and provide them with security, they will be willing to endure danger and disaster for him… When the granaries are full, the people will know propriety and moderation; when their clothing and food are adequate, they will know the distinction between honor and shame.” — in Cheng & Tsui (eds.) Guanzi, Vol. 1 (2001)
Each places an emphasis on stratagems/techniques, or shù [術]
- Benevolence is replaced by firm, strict rule.
- Disregard for the past… needed a system that could work in the present.
As Hanfeizi wrote:
“it is no charity to inflict light punishments nor is it any cruelty to enforce severe penalties; the practice is simply in accordance with the custom of the age. Thus, circumstances change according to the age, and ways of dealing with them change with the circumstances.” — in Chan, A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy (1963)
All advocated for robust systems of law/standards, or fă [法]
- Sought to make a public, written legal code to run the state, instead of the ruler.
We see this theme running directly from Guanzi to Hanfeizi:
“Those who shepherd the people desire them to be controllable. Since they desire them to be controllable, they must pay serious attention to standards (fa).” — in Cheng & Tsui (eds.) Guanzi, Vol. 1 (2001)
“…unify laws (fa) instead of seeking for wise men, …lay down firm policies instead of longing for men of good faith.” — in Chan, A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy (1963)
Intellectual Exchange at Jixia
Han dynasty historians believed the opening of the Jixia Learning Community (稷下學宮) occurred in 313 BCE. There is some question whether this was a grand opening or a re-opening of a previous institution. In either case, Jixia remained opened for nearly a hundred years.
As Robert Eno has written elsewhere:
“Towards the close of the fourth century BCE the new ruling house of the state of Qi decided to strengthen its prestige by establishing an “academy” at its capital city of Linzi… intended to serve as a magnet for intellectual talent and… provide a promising group of young men from which to recruit government talent.”
Not surprisingly, western commentators have often seized upon such accounts in order to paint the Jixia “Academy” as a sort of Chinese version of Plato’s famous school in Athens. However, Jixia was more of a neighborhood of “masters” than it was a formal school. It would probably be more accurate to call it the “Jixia Intellectual Exchange” or the “Jixia Learning District.”
Scholars from all over the Warring States, and representing many philosophical views, are believed to have spent time at Jixia. Mencius almost certainly was one of its early residents. Some have even suggested that Zhuangzi may have passed through. By the middle of the 3rd century its leading figures and texts included:
- Xunzi — pessimistic Confucianism
- Zou Yan — yin-yang & wuxing naturalism
- the Guanzi — realpolitik philosophy and Huang-Lao Daoist practices
The combination of these produced the Legalism of Hanfeizi and Li Si. Several invasions threatened the Jixia, but it continued to exist in some form or another until Qin (under the influence of Li Si) invaded Qi and destroyed it.
Legalism and the Qin Purge
To get a sense at how truly antithetical Legalism was to Confucian ways of thinking, consider Hanfeizi’s thoughts on what he called the “five vermin.”
- Scholars praise former kings and falsely imitate their humaneness and rightness.
- Speechmakers propound false schemes, focusing on personal interests.
- Swordsman assemble followers and pursue self-interests outside the state.
- Merchants and artisans waste time and resources on articles useless to the state.
As Hanfeizi said of scholars like Confucius:
“If Yao and Shun had relinquished the power of their positions as rulers and abandon the law, and instead went from door-to-door persuading and debating with people… they would not have been able to bring order to even a few households.” — in Chan, A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy (1963)
He concluded the power of position should be maintained by a ruler through “two handles,” i.e. favor (rewards) and punishment (execution). A ruler practicing Hanfeizi’s version of wuwei was instructed to conceal his motives so his ministers could not “carve and polish” themselves to suit his fancy. In this way, the ruler could take the credit for his ministers’ successes and avoid blame whenever they failed. Hanfeizi’s critiques were, no doubt, rooted in real social ills (especially in his home state of Han), but it seems the Legalists may have “thrown the baby out with the bath” in trying to address these problems.
In any case, Hanfeizi was invited to Qin by Li Si and the Qin ruler (Ying Zheng), who admired the critiques of government Hanfeizi had already penned. He was received with delight by the Qin ruler, but before he could gain the king’s full confidence Li Si grew jealous and slandered him by saying he was spying for his home state of Han and he was too talented to release back to an enemy.
Hanfeizi was arrested and, while imprisoned, he authored a treatise to change the kings’ mind.
It worked, but before the king could halt Hanfeizi’s execution, Li Si sent poison to his cell, under the guise of mercy, and Hanfeizi drank it.
Once Ying Zheng ascended to emperor of a united China and became “Qin Shi Huang,” Li Si persuaded him to suppress all intellectual dissent. Li Si himself penned the edict ordering the destruction of historical records and literature in 213 BC, including key Confucian texts, which he thought detrimental to the welfare of the state.
Li Si’s argument has survived in the Shiji [Record of the Grand Historian]:
“Your servant suggests that all books in the imperial archives, save the memoirs of Qin, be burned. All persons in the empire, except members of the Academy of Learned Scholars, in possession of the Classic of Odes, the Classic of Documents, and discourses of the hundred philosophers should take them to the local governors and have them indiscriminately burned. Those who dare to talk to each other about the Odes and Documents should be executed and their bodies exposed in the marketplace. Anyone referring to the past to criticize the present should, together with all members of his family, be put to death. Officials who fail to report cases that have come under their attention are equally guilty. After thirty days from the time of issuing the decree, those who have not destroyed their books are to be branded and sent to build the Great Wall. Books not to be destroyed will be those on medicine and pharmacy, divination by the turtle and milfoil, and agriculture and arboriculture. People wishing to pursue learning should take the officials as their teachers.” — in De Bary and Bloom (eds.) Sources of Chinese Tradition, 2nd Edition, Vol. 1 (1999)
It’s said 460 Confucian scholars were buried alive.
The last remnants of the Jixia Academy, where Li Si had received his training, were destroyed.
And, so, Legalism secured its intellectual victory.
That’s it for this entry. In Part 21 we’ll turn out attention to the text that is perhaps most familiar to western audiences — Sunzi’s Art of War — and the philosophical tradition it represents, known as Bīng Fă.
Hope to see you there!
