Abstract
This paper explores one of the major paradoxes in Han Fei’s (韓非 d. 233 B.C.E.) ideology. On the one hand, more than any other known thinker, Han Fei remained resolutely committed to safeguarding the ruler’s interests; and many of his pronouncements can be read as supportive of concentration of absolute power in the monarch’s hands. On the other hand, he remained soberly aware of the potential inadequacy of the monarch, and was skeptical of the possibility of improving the ruler’s functioning. As a result, despite his unequivocal commitment to the strengthening of the monarchic institution, Han Fei sought to limit an individual ruler’s interventions in everyday policy-making to the degree of the complete depersonalization of the monarch. In practice, this meant that everyday government tasks would be maintained by the members of ministerial stratum, precisely those treacherous men whose scheming and deceitfulness Han Fei mercilessly exposed. Probably aware of this fundamental contradiction in his policy recommendations, Han Fei made a curious shift in argument: in a few chapters he insists that amid “treacherous, larcenous, and murderous ministers” there are exceptions: “the possessor of techniques” (youshu zhe 有術者), who can be relied upon to maintain the affairs in the ruler’s stead. Thus Han Fei, an unequivocal opponent of ministerial power, ended with the same recommendation as most of his ideological opponents: the ruler should be omnipotent as an institution but nullified as an individual, while intellectuals of Han Fei’s ilk would display their utmost respect to the monarch—but rule the realm in his stead.
This research was supported by the Israel Science Foundation (grant No. 1217/07) and by the Michael William Lipson Chair in Chinese Studies.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Notes
- 1.
Hsiao’s vehement attacks on Han Fei and the Legalists serve him to reject the Neo-Confucian teaching of the “three bonds” (sangang 三綱), which is first attested in the “Loyalty and Filiality” (“Zhongxiao” 忠孝) chapter of the Han Feizi, and which Hsiao considers a Legalist legacy that contaminated the Confucian teaching. By promulgating this doctrine, “Confucians of Song and Ming times… were unknowingly serving Shen Dao and Han Fei, ‘acknowledging a bandit to be their father.’” (Hsiao 1979: 386, with Romanization emended). For more on the background behind Hsiao’s composition of the History of Chinese Political Thought, see Huang Junjie 2001.
- 2.
- 3.
See, e.g., Wang Xianqian 1988: 5.9.165; 12.18.321; 9.14.263; 13.19.374; 17.24.450 et saepe; Chen Qiyou 2002: 20.1.1321-22. See more details in Pines 2009: 41–50 and 82–97.
- 4.
For Han Fei’s association with the “Huang-Lao school,” see Sima Qian 1959: 63.2146. han Fei’s relation to the Laozi tradition is buttressed by the fact that two chapters of the Han Feizi—“Explaining Lao” (解老) and “Illustrating Lao” (喻老)—are the earliest known commentaries on the Laozi. In my discussion, though, I do not utilize these two chapters because their provenance is hotly disputed (see the chapter by Queen in this volume; also Sarkissian 2001). For the ideology of monarchism in the Laozi and its influence on the Warring States period thought, see Pines 2009: 36–44.
- 5.
See, e.g., Jiang Lihong 1996: 2.7.51–58; Shen Dao’s fragments in Thompson 1979: 264–65; Wang Xianqian 1988: 5.9.165 and 171; 9.14.263; Chen Qiyou 2002: 20.1.1321–22.
- 6.
For Han Fei’s ridicule of the primacy of filial piety, see, e.g., Chen Qiyou 2000: 19.49.1104; compare his identification of the ruler’s mother as one of the threats to his power (Chen Qiyou 2000: 18.48.1053). Yet these and similar statements indicate the thinker’s awareness of the limitations of the filial feelings to regulate sociopolitical life, but not his rejection of the principle of filiality. For Han Fei’s views of loyalty, see my discussion below in the text; also Kosaki 2005.
- 7.
Han Fei refers here to the story of Shun’s humble position under Yao’s rule before his sudden elevation by Yao.
- 8.
The potential of a secondary city to rival the capital and become the base for a rebellion was well recognized already in the Springs and Autumns period, when several such rebellions occurred; see, for example, Yang Bojun 1981: 1.11–12.
- 9.
During a century and a half following the demise of the ruling houses in Jin 晉 (403 BCE) and Qi 齊 (386 BCE), ministerial usurpations took place only in minor states, such as Song 宋, one of the Zhou 周 royal principalities, and in the state of Yan 燕, where the king was tricked to abdicate in favor of his minister Zizhi 子之. This paucity of usurpations suggests that Han Fei’s “rule” of ministerial treachery was actually an exception. Throughout the Warring States period, only six rulers were murdered by their subordinates, in sharp distinction to the Springs and Autumns age, which witnessed well over fifty cases of regicide (Yin Zhenhuan 1987: 21). Was Han Fei reflecting upon the experience of the Springs and Autumns period rather than that of the Warring States? Or was he aware of plots that never materialized and hence left no traces in the historical record?
- 10.
Following Chen Qiyou’s gloss (Xhen Qiyou 2000: 129–30), I omit a sentence here that appears to be an old gloss misplaced into the text.
- 11.
According to wang Xianshen 王先慎 (1859–1922), “those who gathered” refers to powerful ministers with large private retinue.
- 12.
Elsewhere, Han Fei warns the ruler against “relying on his heart” (Chen Qiyou 2000: 8.27.542); urges him to give up likes and dislikes (2.7.130) and to avoid granting personal favors to ministers at the expense of impartial laws (5.19.355).
- 13.
Possibly, orders (ling 令) here stand for the Decree/destiny (ming 命), since otherwise it is unclear whose orders is the ruler would be awaiting.
- 14.
See, for example, the “Law of the Way” (“Daofa” 道法) and “Assessments” (“Lun” 論) chapters from the Jingfa 經法 text from Mawangdui 馬王堆 (Silk Manuscripts from the Han Tomb at Mawangdui 1980-: 1.1–13 and 55–66; Yates 1997: 50–54 and 80–86); or the “Relying on Law” (任法 “Renfa”) chapter of the Guanzi (Li Xiangfeng 2004: 15.45.900–1).
- 15.
That is, the minister will embellish the ruler’s desires to entice the ruler to trust him.
- 16.
Following Lu Wenchao 盧文弨 (1712–1799), I emend chi 敕 to xiao 效.
- 17.
Juan 4 comprises of four chapters: “Solitary Indignation,” “The Difficulties of Persuasion,” “Mr. He” (“He shi” 和氏) and “Treacherous, Larcenous, Murderous Ministers.” A few other short chapters disclose very similar “ministerial” sentiments; most notably “Asking Tian” and “The Ruler of Men” (“Renzhu” 人主). To be sure, the authorship and dating of each of these chapters is contestable; for instance, Zheng Liangshu considers some of them spurious, while others, especially the “Treacherous, Larcenous, Murderous Ministers,” as belonging to the early stage of Han Fei’s intellectual activity (Zheng Liangshu 1993: 129–140). Needless to say, these conjectures, just like mine—that the chapter may reflect the maturation of Han Fei’s thought—cannot be proved.
- 18.
The term “plain-clothed shi” (buyi zhi shi 布衣之士) is frequently used in texts from the late Warring States period emphasizing that the real shi are self-made men, who come from poor families. See Pines 2002b: 701–2.
Works Cited
Chen, Qiyou. 2002. Springs and Autumns of Mr. Lü, with new collations and explanations 呂氏春秋新校釋. Shanghai: Guji.
Chen, Qiyou 陳奇猷. 2000. Han Feizi, with new collations and commentary 韓非子新校注. Shanghai: Guji.
Goldin, Paul R. 2005. After Confucius: Studies in early Chinese philosophy. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Graham, A.C. 1989. Disputers of the Tao: Philosophical argument in ancient China. La Salle: Open Court. (A major comprehensive study of early Chinese philosophy.)
Hsiao, Kung-chuan. 1979. A history of Chinese political thought. Vol. I: From the beginnings to the sixth century A.D. Tr. F.W. Mote, Princeton Library of Asian Translations. Princeton: Princeton University Press. (The first part of a comprehensive, even if outdated, study of Chinese political thought, prepared in the 1940s.)
Huang, Junjie 黃俊傑. 2001. Xiao Gongquan and studies on the history of Chinese political thought 蕭剬權與中國政治思想史研究. Historical Bulletin of Taiwan University臺大歷史學報 27: 151–185.
Jiang, Lihong 蔣禮鴻 (1916-1995). 1996. Pointing an Awl at the Book of Lord Shang 商君書錐指. Beijing: Zhonghua. (A major modern textual analysis of the Book of Lord Shang.)
Jiang, Zhongyue 蔣重躍. 2000. The political thought of Han Feizi 韓非子的政治思想. Beijing: Beijing Shifan Daxue. (Rudimentary analysis of the text of Han Feizi.)
Kosaki, Tomonori 小崎智則. 2005. On ‘Loyalty’ in the Han Feizi《韓非子》の「忠」について. Collected Papers on Chinese Philosophy from Nagoya University 名古屋大學中國哲學論集 4: 25–38.
Li, Xiangfeng 黎翔鳯. 2004. Guanzi, with collations and commentary 管子校注. Beijing: Zhonghua.
Liu, Zehua 劉澤華. 1996. History of Chinese political thought: Pre-Qin Volume 中國政治思想史:先秦卷. Hangzhou: Zhejiang renmin. (A major Chinese-language introduction to Chinese political thought.)
Liu, Zehua. 2000. China’s monarchism 中國的王權主義. Shanghai: Renmin. (A major study of Chinese political culture.)
Liu, Zehua. 2003. Drafts from “Cleaning the Ears” studio 洗耳齋文稿. Beijing: Zhonghua.
Lundahl, Bertil. 1992. Han Fei Zi: The man and the work. Stockholm: Institute of Oriental Languages, Stockholm University. (The leading English-language study of the composition of Han Feizi.)
Pines, Yuri. 2002a. Foundations of Confucian thought: Intellectual life in the Chunqiu period, 722–453 B.C.E. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Pines, Yuri. 2002b. Lexical changes in Zhanguo texts. Journal of the American Oriental Society 122(4): 691–705.
Pines, Yuri. 2005. Disputers of Abdication: Zhanguo Egalitarianism and the Sovereign’s Power. T’oung Pao 91(4–5): 243–300.
Pines, Yuri. 2008. To Rebel is Justified? The Image of Zhouxin and Legitimacy of Rebellion in Chinese Political Tradition. Oriens Extremus 47: 1–24.
Pines, Yuri. 2009. Envisioning eternal empire: Chinese political thought of the Warring States era. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. (A study of early Chinese political thought.)
Puett, Michael J., 2002. To become a God: Cosmology, sacrifice, and self-divinization in darly China. Cambridge/London: Harvard University Press. (A major study of the evolution of ideology of sagehood in early China.)
Sarkissian, Hagop. 2001. Laozi: Re-Visiting Two Early Commentaries in the Hanfeizi. M.A. Thesis, University of Toronto. (Argues that two Laozi-related chapters of the Han Feizi could not be possibly produced by a single author.)
Silk Manuscripts from the Han Tomb at Mawangdui 馬王堆漢墓帛書. 1980-. 3 vols. to date. Beijing: Wenwu.
Sima Qian (145?-86? B.C.E.). 1959. Records of the historian 史記. Beijing: Zhonghua.
Thompson, P.M. 1979. The Shen-tzu fragments. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wang, Hsiao-po, and Leo S. Chang. 1986. The philosophical foundations of Han Fei’s political theory. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. (An exploration of Han Fei’s political philosophy based on five chapters in the Han Feizi.)
Wang, Xianqian 王先謙 (1842–1918). 1988. Xunzi, with collected explanations 荀子集解, ed. Shen Xiaohuan 沈嘯寰 and Wang Xingxian 王星賢. Beijing: Zhonghua.
Wang, Xianshen 王先慎 (1859–1922). 1998. Han Feizi, with collected explications 韩非子集解, ed. Zhong Zhe 鍾哲. Beijing: Zhonghua.
Yang Bojun 楊伯峻 (1909–1992). 1981. Chun qiu Zuo zhuan with commentaries 春秋左傳注. Beijing: Zhonghua.
Yates, Robin D.S., trans. 1997. The five lost classics: Tao, Huang-Lao and Yin-Yang in Han China. New York: Ballantine.
Yin, Zhenhuan 尹振環. 1987. Using instances of royal succession and regicide to analyze the advance of authoritarian dictatorship 從王位繼承和弑君看君主專制理論的逐步形成. Chinese History 中國史研究4: 17–24.
Zheng, Liangshu. 1993. The composition and thought of the Han Feizi 韓非之著書及思想. Taipei: Xuesheng. (A major study of the text of the Han Feizi.)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Pines, Y. (2013). Submerged by Absolute Power: The Ruler’s Predicament in the Han Feizi . In: Goldin, P. (eds) Dao Companion to the Philosophy of Han Fei. Dao Companions to Chinese Philosophy. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4318-2_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4318-2_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-4317-5
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-4318-2
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)