Han Feizi

The Han Feizi was originally simply named the Hanzi (Master Han). The title was expanded to Han Feizi during the Tang Dynasty, possibly to avoid confusion with the Confucian poet Han Yu. Not including critical edition commentary, it appears to have always been considered properly the same length of 55 p'ien since the time of its listing in the Hanshu's catalogue. A few sources list it as one p'ien longer, but was likely just copyist error. There are slightly shorter editions, but these did not have serious losses, and went out of print inside China after it was restored to full length. Two of the text's Laozi commentaries, 20-21, have generally been considered addendums due to "considerable ideological, lexical, and stylistic differences". This says nothing as to the date of their authorship or addition however, with no chapter demonstrating knowledge of Qin unification. ==Late pre-Han dating==

Alongside Zheng Liangshu and Jiang Chongyue, Lundahl's scholarship, reviewing Chinese scholarship, was notable in examining authorship and dating of Han Feizi's chapters, and have still been recalled modernly. Sima Qian presents Han Fei as a late Warring states period figure. Because Sima Qian only mentions a few chapters, it is not possible to outright preclude a later Han dynasty origin for the entire work, but it does not mention any Han dynasty events, or avoid any Han dynasty taboos that would prohibit a late Warring States dating. Except as compilations, some chapters would have to be at least as late as the late Warring States period. Chapters 6 and 19 recall the fall of several late Warring states period states. Chapter 6's memorial on Having Regulations recalls the fall of Wey in 243bce. Chapter 19's Taking Measures recalls Qin's conquest of Ye from the Zhao, dated to 236bce. Seemingly written from the context of the late Han state, the chapter could still conceivably have preceded Han's fall in 230bce, or that of either Zhao or Wei if they had only yet ceded territory. Xunzi Putting aside the traditional claim of Xun Kuang as a teacher of Han Fei, Xun Kuang is still a useful demarcation. (Parts of) the Han Feizi adapt administrative ideas from Shen Buhai, a contemporary of Shang Yang. It's particular "Xing-Ming" adaptation of Shen Buhai likely does post-date the Xunzi, with the Xunzi and then Han Feizi being more technically complex. The Han Feizi is also Shang Yang's first reference. The Xunzi references a variety of figures, but not Shang Yang. The Han Feizi moreover dominantly develops earlier pre-Xunzi thinking. Both the Han Feizi and Lushi Chunqiu discuss Shen Dao, but the Han Feizi's argument has more in common with the earlier thinker. It lacks an ideological basis for more complex, late Warring States hierarchies, which the Lushi Chunqiu subsequently develops. Shen Dao wasn't very ideological either; he suggests power as a means to order as an alternative to chaos, if the ruler prefers order. He also suggests means to chaos. In this case, the Lushi Chunqiu has more in common with Xun Kuang, while the Han Feizi has more in common with the earlier Shen Dao. As argued by Tao Jiang, simply interpreting "Han Fei" as a late student of Xun Kuang, as according to Sima Qian, can "distort the nature of the Han Feizi’s approach to politics, as well as misidentify (his) sources of inspiration." Although Xun Kuang views human nature as "bad", he has a more moral focus, while the Han Feizi's view of human nature as "driven by cravings for wealth and recognition" is "much more aligned with pre-Xunzi thinkers". Sima Qian also relates Han Fei with Laozi, considering Han Fei concerned with such things as "methods and techniques of governance." Lushi Chunqiu Although considering Shen Dao's influence clear, Eirik Lang Harris (2016) of the Shenzi fragments did not consider it discernible whether the Lushi Chunqiu's Shen Dao influence was adapted directly from Shen Dao, or based on writings filtered through secondary scholars, as including what is now Chapter 40 of the Han Feizi. But he considered the latter likely. If not including a basis in what is now chapter 40 itself, the Lushi Chunqiu otherwise makes it more likely that at least some of its argumentation predates it. Shen Dao saw governing the state as based in controlling the allotment of goods, preventing contention between people seeking them. Neither the Confucians, Shen Dao or Han Fei view the ruler's positional power as sufficient to determine good or ill. In principle, the Lushu Chunqiu justifies an entire hierarchy for it. Harris takes the ''Lushi Chunqiu's'' moral adaptation as resonating more with its own late Xun Kuang era. It still adapts Shen Dao's ideas of positional power as preventing chaos, but as justifying more complex hierarchy together with a more moral justification using it to aid the impoverished. The Han Feizi doesn't simply advance Shen Dao either, and can still be considered late. But it is more closely aligned with Shen Dai's earlier Warring States ideas in the sense of "amoral" political theory. It defends Shen Dao's "adapting to circumstances" from earlier Confucianism, taken as arguing against positional power as a tool for good or ill when used by good or bad actors. Han Fei maintains it is as insufficient to cause or solve good or ill, ruin and disaster, which in some cases is beyond human control. Positional power more simply aids the ruler in maintaining his position and order. At most, it will enable the government's adaptation to circumstances, while at worst the ruler doesn't cause ruin by himself. Laozi commentaries Containing the earliest commentaries on the Tao te Ching (Laozi), while early Chinese scholarship agreed with a post-Han Fei dating for the Han Feizi's Laozi commentaries Ch.20-21, later Chinese scholarship questioned a late dating with the discovery of the Mawangdui silk texts, following Sima Qian's assertion that Han Fei was based in Huang-Lao. Like Yuri Pines, Lundahl still considered a direct authorthial or ideological basis between the commentaries and Han Feizi questionable, considering them addendums. Regardless, the text's Laozi content would most likely have been added in a period when the editors thought rulers would have been interested in commentaries on Laozi. With Chapter 5 also syncretizing Laozi and Shen Buhai, this can include the period of its writing and inclusion. Although not necessarily the "original" Tao te Ching, the Han Feizi is probably reading from an early, less metaphysical version, like that of the Mawangdui. Less "realist", the commentaries themselves could even be argued earlier than other parts of the Han Feizi. Sinologist Hansen, Tang Junyi and A.C. Graham related the commentaries as developing out of the late Warring States Guanzi, as including the earlier Neiye. While it would not suggest they were written by the Han Fei of Sima Qian, Lundalh argued they bare more resemblance to the earlier Mencius than late Warring States Xun Kuang or other parts of the Han Feizi, placing less emphasis on ceremony than the "innermost heart". ==Introduction==

Han Fei describes an interest-driven human nature together with the political methodologies to work with it in the interest of the state and Sovereign, namely, engaging in passive observation, and the systematic use of fa () to maintain leadership and manage human resources, its use to increase welfare, and its relation with justice. Rather than rely too much on worthies, who might not be trustworthy, Han Fei binds their programs to systematic reward and penalty (the 'two handles'), fishing the subjects of the state by feeding them with interests. That being done, the ruler minimizes his own input, intending to make no judgement apart from observances of the facts. Like Shang Yang and other fa philosophers, he admonishes the ruler not to abandon fa for any other means, considering it a more practical means for the administration of both a large territory and personnel near at hand. Han Fei's philosophy proceeds from the regicide of his era. Sinologist Goldin writes: "Most of what appears in the Han Feizi deals with the ruler's relations with his ministers, [who] were regarded as the party most likely, in practice, to cause him harm." Han Fei quotes the Springs and Autumns of Tao Zuo: "'Less than half of all rulers die of illness.' If the ruler of men is unaware of this, disorders will be manifold and unrestrained. Thus it is said: If those who benefit from a lord's death are many, the ruler will be imperiled.". ==Confucian comparison==

As compared with the Han Feizi, much of the early Legalist Book of Lord Shang is more focused on state power in relation to the general populace, emphasizing agriculture and war. It only really starts to develop ideas of managing ministers later in the work. A notable example, Chapter 24's "Interdicts and Encouragements", begins to develop ideas on power similar to Shen Dao, but is very late in the work and also of likely later dating than its earlier chapters. Some authors of the Han Feizi took a negative view of Confucianism, and the work has little interest in them as scholars or philosophers. However, at least compared with the Book of Lord Shang's stratocracy, the Han Feizi can arguably be compared more with Confucianism, even if it incorporates reward and punishment. Although its much later administrative mechanisms are more complex, the Han Feizi has a bureaucratic system of names (roles) that can still be compared with the much earlier Confucian rectification of names, and is more focused on forbidding and encouraging ministers, who may well be Confucians themselves. Although the Han Feizi advocates law, it also criticizes Shang Yang in much the same way that the Confucians critique law. Holding that laws cannot practice themselves, it blames him for too much reliance on law. Substituting the Confucian argument for virtuous worthies with administrative methods, some originating in Shen Buhai, the Han Feizi says of Shang Yang's Qin state: "Although the laws were rigorously implemented by the officials, the ruler at the apex lacked methods." Spear-shield paradox Chapter 36 is credited as the origin of the Chinese word for contradiction (), illustrating the irresistible force paradox: Among the Chu, there was a man selling shields and spears. He praised the former saying, "My shields are so solid nothing can penetrate them". Then he would praise his spears saying, "My spears are so sharp that among all things there's nothing they can't penetrate". Somebody else said, "If somebody tried to penetrate your shields with your spears, what would happen?" The man could not respond. Debating with a Confucianist about the legendary Chinese sage rulers Yao and Shun, Han Fei argues that one cannot praise them both because that would be making a "spear–shield" contradiction. ==Wu wei==

Devoting the entirety of Chapter 14, "How to Love the Ministers", to "persuading the ruler to be ruthless to his ministers", Han Fei's enlightened ruler strikes terror into his ministers by doing nothing (wu wei). Discarding his private reason and morality, he shows no personal feelings. The qualities of a ruler, his "mental power, moral excellence and physical prowess" are not as important as his method of government. Applying Fa (standards) requires no perfection on the part of the ruler. If the Han Feizi's wu wei was derivative of a proto-Daoism, its Dao nonetheless emphasizes autocracy ("Tao does not identify with anything but itself, the ruler does not identify with the ministers"). Accepting that the Han Feizi applies wu wei specifically to statecraft, professor Xing Lu nonetheless argues that it actually does consider wu wei a virtue, and not just a tool or argument for the ruler to reduce activity and act impartially. The Han Feizi says, "by virtue [de] of resting empty and reposed, he waits for the course of nature to enforce itself." With visible usages of Xing-Ming, the Han Feizi's chapter 5 Zhudao () or "Way of the Ruler" recalls Laozi and Shen Buhai in parallel style, with the idea of names "rectifying themselves" "anticipated" by Shen Buhai. The Han Feizi includes other commentaries on the Daodejing that would seem to assert that perspective-less knowledge – an absolute point of view – is possible. But scholarship has generally considered them an addendum, given differences with the rest of the work. ==Performance and title (Xing-Ming)==

Han Fei was notoriously focused on what he termed xing-ming, which Sima Qian and Liu Xiang define as "holding actual outcome accountable to ming (speech)." it is relatable to the Confucian tradition in which a promise or undertaking, especially in relation to a government aim, entails punishment or reward, Possibly referring to the drafting and imposition of laws and standardized legal terms, xing-ming may originally have meant "punishments and names", but with the emphasis on the latter. It functions through binding declarations (ming), like a legal contract. Verbally committing oneself, a candidate is allotted a job, indebting him to the ruler. "Naming" people to (objectively determined) positions, it rewards or punishes according to the proposed job description and whether the results fit the task entrusted by their word, which a real minister fulfils. 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. It is said that using names (ming) to demand realities (shi) exalts superiors and curbs inferiors, provides a check on the discharge of duties, and naturally results in emphasizing the high position of superiors, compelling subordinates to act in the manner of the latter. Han Fei considers xing-ming an essential element of autocracy, saying that "In the way of assuming Oneness names are of first importance. When names are put in order, things become settled down; when they go awry, things become unfixed." functions could be strictly defined to prevent conflict and corruption, and objective rules (fa) impervious to divergent interpretation could be established, judged solely by their effectiveness. By narrowing down the options to exactly one, discussions on the "right way of government" could be eliminated. Whatever the situation (shi) brings is the correct Dao. Though recommending use of Shen Buhai's techniques, Han Fei's xing-ming is both considerably narrower and more specific. The functional dichotomy implied in Han Fei's mechanistic accountability is not readily implied in Shen's, and might be said to be more in line with the later thought of the Han dynasty linguist Xu Gan than that of either Shen Buhai or his supposed teacher Xun Kuang. The "Two Handles" Though not entirely accurately, most Han works identify Shang Yang with penal law. Its discussion of bureaucratic control is simplistic, chiefly advocating punishment and reward. Shang Yang was largely unconcerned with the organization of the bureaucracy apart from this. The use of these "two handles" (punishment and reward) nonetheless forms a primary premise of Han Fei's administrative theory. However, he includes it under his theory of shu (administrative techniques) in connection with xing-ming. The philosophy of the "Two Handles" likens the ruler to the tiger or leopard, which "overpowers other animals by its sharp teeth and claws" (rewards and punishments). Without them he is like any other man; his existence depends upon them. To "avoid any possibility of usurpation by his ministers", power and the "handles of the law" must "not be shared or divided", concentrating them in the ruler exclusively. In practice, this means that the ruler must be isolated from his ministers. The elevation of ministers endangers the ruler, from whom he must be kept strictly apart. Punishment confirms his sovereignty; law eliminates anyone who oversteps his boundary, regardless of intention. Law "aims at abolishing the selfish element in man and the maintenance of public order", making the people responsible for their actions. Combining Shen Buhai's methods with Shang Yang's insurance mechanisms, Han Fei's ruler simply employs anyone offering their services. == Anti-Confucianism ==

While Shen Buhai and Shen Dao's current may not have been hostile to Confucius, Shang Yang and Han Fei emphasize their rejection of past models as unverifiable if not useless ("what was appropriate for the early kings is not appropriate for modern rulers"). Han Fei argued that the age of Li had given way to the age of Fa, with natural order giving way to social order and finally political order. Together with that of Xun Kuang, their sense of human progress and reason guided the Qin dynasty. Intending his Dao (way of government) to be both objective and publicly projectable, Han Fei argued that disastrous results would occur if the ruler acted on arbitrary, ad-hoc decision making, such as that based on relationships or morality which, as a product of reason, are "particular and fallible". Li, or Confucian customs, and rule by example are also simply too ineffective. The ruler cannot act on a case-by-case basis, and so must establish an overarching system, acting through Fa (administrative methods or standards). Fa is not partial to the noble, does not exclude ministers, and does not discriminate against the common people. Taking after Shang Yang he lists the Confucians among his "five vermins", and calls the Confucian teaching on love and compassion for the people the "stupid teaching" and "muddle-headed chatter", the emphasis on benevolence an "aristocratic and elitist ideal" demanding that "all ordinary people of the time be like Confucius' disciples". and points out that "Confucianism" is not a unified body of thought. In opposition to Confucian family sentiment, Tao Jiang (2021) takes Han Fei's analysis of family dynamics as based entirely on the position of the ruler, requiring structural solutions rather than Confucian education or moral cultivation. According to the Liji, an "important early Confucian canon", penal laws should not be applied to high officials. As a major source of political corruption, ministers shielded family members from penal measures in the name of Humaneness and others moral justifications. Only those without connections are subject to the law. Although noting an opposition between politic and morality, Tao Jiang takes Han Fei's opposition in this as clearly pointing to a moral dimension in his vision of political order. In what Tao Jiang takes as one of Han Fei's "most powerful condemnation of the gross injustice suffered by the commoners", Han Fei says: ==Comparisons and views==

Apart from the influence of Confucianist Xun Zi, who was his and Li Si's teacher, because of the Han Feizi's commentary on the Daodejing, interpreted as a political text, the Han Feizi has sometimes been included as part of the syncretist Huang-Lao tradition, seeing the Tao as a natural law that everyone and everything was forced to follow, like a force of nature. Being older than more recent scholarship, translator W. K. Liao (1939) described the world view of the Han Feizi as "purely Taoistic", advocating a "doctrine of inaction" nonetheless followed by an "insistence on the active application of the two handles to government", this being the "difference between Han Fei Tzŭ's ideas and the teachings of the orthodox Taoists (who advocated non-action from start to finish)." Liao compares Han Fei's thought to Shang Yang, "directing his main attention... to the issues between ruler and minister... teaching the ruler how to maintain supremacy and why to weaken the minister." in his foreword to the Han Feizi praised Han Fei as a knowledgeable man with sharp, logical and firm arguments, supported by large amount of practical and realistic evidence. Han Fei's strict methods were appropriate in a context of social decadence. Phan Ngọc claimed that Han Fei's writings has three drawbacks, however: first, his idea of Legalism was unsuited to autocracy because a ruling dynasty will sooner or later deteriorate. Second, due to the inherent limitation of autocratic monarchy system, Han Fei did not manage to provide the solutions for all the issues that he pointed out. Third, Han Fei was wrong to think that human is inherently evil and only seeks fame and profit: there are humans who sacrificed their own profit for the greater good, including Han Fei himself. considered the Han Feizi to be superior to Machiavelli's Prince, and claimed that Han Fei's ideology was highly refined for its era. Although considering the Han Feizi rich and erudite, Sinologist Chad Hansen does not consider Han Fei particularly original, philosophical or ethical" and "more polemical than reasoned", with unjustified assumptions and cynicism recognizable "from all self-described realists", resting on the familiar sneering tone of superior realistic insight." ==Totalitarianism==

Han Fei has been called totalitarian, but is not very supported in modern scholarship as lacking an ideological basis. The Han Feizi opposes Confucianism and Mohism, or "discourses of the former kings" inasmuch as moralizing discourse could be manipulative. Han Fei says the king should prohibit doctrines he doesn't approve of, or make them official doctrine. If they join the state as teachers of law, it doesn't oppose "in principle" that they could contribute beneficial ideas, codifying their teachings into law rather than texts. Han Fei's management doesn't require that all programs benefit the state the way he thinks they should. They just have to do what they say they're going to do. The minister presents his statement; the ruler assigns him tasks according to his statement, and evaluates his merits exclusively according to the task. (Han Feizi 7: 40–41) Per Sinologist Goldin, Han Fei "might advocate authoritarianism", but is too "nihilist" to offer ideological backing for totalitarianism, not trusting ministers who "claim to be guided by principles beyond reward and punishment." Han Fei sometimes sympathizes on behalf of the people, but generally operates in the name of nothing besides the ruler. Together with what is taken as a concern for justice, Sinologist Tao Jiang posits his "total rejection of any political actors and agents independent of the state" as a basis for totalitarianism. Han Fei was "adamant that blatant manipulation and subversion of law to the detriment of the state and the ruler should never be tolerated", condemning "gross injustice suffered by the commoners." His solution for aiding the people or saving the state is depriving ministers of power, the same thing he advocates as serving the ruler's interest. Punishing and rewarding the ministers might also benefit the people, who might also benefit from punishment and reward. Virtue and love directed toward them probably will not benefit them. Those men who violated the laws, committed treason, and carried out major acts of evil always worked through some eminent and highly placed minister. And yet the laws and regulations are customarily designed to prevent evil among the humble and lowly people, and it is upon them alone that penalties and punishments fall. Hence the common people lose hope and are left with no place to air their grievances. Meanwhile the high ministers band together and work as one man to cloud the vision of the ruler. ==Translations==

• Liao, W. K. (1939). The Complete Works of Han Fei Tzu. London: Arthur Probsthain. • ——— (1959). The Complete Works of Han Fei Tzu, Volume II. London: Arthur Probsthain. • ==See also==