EXERCISE: LEGALIST THOUGHT
Han Fei (d. 233 BCE) was a student of the philosopher Xunzi (c. 310-c. 219 BCE), but
abandoned Confucian philosophy in favor of the more pragmatic and hardheaded
approach of men like Lord Shang (Shang Yang or Gongsun Yang, d. 338 BCE), whom
we collectively label as “Legalists.” Han Fei worked as an official for the state of Qin until
he was executed in 233 BCE, allegedly on charges manipulated by a fellow official, Li Si
(d. 208 BCE), who was also formerly a fellow student under Xunzi. Han Fei is most
famous, however, for having developed a thorough and systematic synthesis of Legalist
and Daoist philosophy, which we see in the book which bears his name -- a book of
which he is possibly the real author, but which at any rate is accepted as a reasonably
accurate representation of his thinking.
EXERCISE 1: LEGALIST THOUGHTS ABOUT CONFUCIUS
Selections from the Han Feizi:
Chapter 49, “The Five Vermin”
“There was a farmer of Song who tilled the land, and in his field was a stump. One day a
rabbit, racing across the field, bumped into the stump, broke its neck, and died.
Thereupon the farmer laid aside his plow and took up watch beside the stump, hoping
that he would get another rabbit in the same way. But he got no more rabbits, and
instead became the laughingstock of Song. Those who think they can take the ways of
the ancient kings and use them to govern the people of today all belong in the category
of stump‐ watchers!”
...
“Humaneness may make one shed tears and be reluctant to apply penalties, but law
makes it clear that such penalties must be applied. The ancient kings allowed law to be
supreme and did not give in to their tearful longings. Hence it is obvious that
humaneness cannot be used to achieve order in the state.
...”
“Hardly ten men of true integrity and good faith can be found today, and yet the offices of
the state number in the hundreds. If they must be filled by men of integrity and good faith,
then there will never be enough men to go around; and if the offices are left unfilled, then
those whose business it is to govern will dwindle in numbers while disorderly men
increase. Therefore the way of the enlightened ruler is to unify the laws instead of
seeking for wise men, to lay down firm policies instead of longing for men of good faith.
Hence his laws never fail him, and there is no felony or deceit among his officials.
...”
Questions:
1.
What is Han Fei’s attitude toward the past? How does it compare to the attitude of
the Confucian scholars?
2.
What assumptions about human nature underlie Han Fei’s ideas about government
and law?
3.
Han Fei suggests that one cannot staff a bureaucracy by looking for wise and good
men. What alternative does he suggest? Is his alternative realistic?
4.
Would you prefer to work in a government run according to Han Fei’s ideas,
or in a government run according to the ideas of Confucius?
5.
Would you prefer to live in a state governed according to the principles of
Confucius and Mencius, or one governed according to the principles of Han
Fei?
1
EXERCISE 2: LEGALIST THOUGHT ABOUT FEUDALISM & KNOWLEDGE
MEMORIAL ON ANNEXATION OF FEUDAL STATES AND MEMORIAL ON THE
BURNING OF BOOKS
By Li Si (as recorded by Sima Qian)
Introduction
Li Si (d. 208 BCE) was, along with the Legalist philosopher Han Fei (d. 233 BCE), a
student of Xunzi (c. 310-c. 219 BCE) and an official for the kingdom of Qin. When Qin
conquered the remaining feudal states of the Zhou dynasty and built a new, centralized
empire, Li Si was prime minister to the first emperor, Qin Shihuang. As prime minister, Li
Si had the opportunity to bring Legalist political philosophy to bear on the task of uniting
and ruling the patchwork of now-conquered feudal states of the former Zhou kingdom.
The memorials below are two examples of the policies that Li Si successfully urged Qin
Shihuang to follow.
By Li Si as recorded by Sima Qian
From the Memorial on Annexation of Feudal States
...
Now, with the might of Qin and the virtues of Your Highness, at one stroke, like sweeping
off the dust from a kitchen stove, the feudal lords can be annihilated, imperial rule can be
established, and unification of the world can be brought about. This is the one moment in
ten thousand ages. If Your Highness allows it to slip away and does not press the
advantage in haste, the feudal lords will revive their strength and organize themselves
into an anti‐ Qin alliance. Then no one, even though he possess the virtues of the Yellow
Emperor,
would be able to annex their territories.
From the Memorial on the Burning of Books
...
But at present Your Majesty possesses a unified empire, has regulated the distinctions of
black and white, and has firmly established for yourself a position of sole supremacy.
And yet these independent schools, joining with each other, criticize the codes of laws
and instructions. Hearing of the promulgation of a decree (Official, government order),
they criticize it, each from the standpoint of his own school.
...
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.
Questions:
1.
What common themes do you see in the two memorials?
2.
How do the policies proposed by Li Si contrast with the way in which a
2
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Confucian official might advise his ruler under similar circumstances?
In what respects do the policies recommended by Li Si owe their ideas to
Legalist philosophy?
What arguments might you pose against these policies?
What arguments might you pose in favor of these policies?
Why is Li Si concerned about the control of history?
Do Li Si’s concerns about history have any relevance for contemporary American
or European politics?
3