Legalism (Chinese philosophy)

In contrast to what he takes as the "simple behaviourism" of Schwarz and Graham, Hansen takes Han Fei as more sociological. The ruler should not trust people because their calculation is essentially based on their position, regardless of their past relationship. A wife, concubine or minister all have positional interests. Hence, the ruler engages in calculations of benefit rather than relation. Ministers simply interpret moral guidance in ways that benefit their position. The ruler exclusively uses Fa measurement standards for calculation to reduce possible interpretation. The enemy of order and control is simply the enemy of objective standards, draining power by twisting interpretation through consensus evaluation of clique interests.

Ross Terrill's 2003 New Chinese Empire viewed "Chinese Legalism" as "Western as Thomas Hobbes, as modern as Hu Jintao... It speaks the universal and timeless language of law and order. The past does not matter, state power is to be maximized, politics has nothing to do with morality, intellectual endeavour is suspect, violence is indispensable, and little is to be expected from the rank and file except an appreciation of force." He calls Legalism the "iron scaffolding of the Chinese Empire", but emphasizes the marriage between Legalism and Confucianism.

Leadership and management in China (2008) takes the writings of Han Fei as almost purely practical. With the proclaimed goal of a “rich state and powerful army”, they teach the ruler techniques (shu) to survive in a competitive world through administrative reform: strengthening the central government, increasing food production, enforcing military training, or replacing the aristocracy with a bureaucracy. Although typically associated with Shang Yang, Kwang-Kuo Wang takes the enriching of the state and strengthening of the army as dating back to Guan Zhong.

Contrary Graham, Goldin (2011) would not regard Han Fei as trying to work out anything like a general theory of the state, or as always dealing with statecraft. Noting Han Fei as as also often concerned with saving one's hide, including that of the ruler, the Han Feizi also has one chapter offering advice to ministers "contrary to the interests of the ruler, although this is an exception... The fact that Han Fei endorses the calculated pursuit of self-interest, even if it means speaking disingenuously before the king, is not easily reconcilable with the reconcilable with the notion that he was advancing a science of statecraft."

Pines page has taken the goal of a “rich state with powerful army” as a primary subject since 2014. In this vein, Pines takes human nature to be a "second pillar" of fa political philosophy, as eschewing it's discussion. The "overwhelming majority of humans are selfish and covetous", which is not taken to be alterable, but rather "can become an asset to the ruler rather than a threat." In this regard, Han Fei is an addendum to Gongsun Yang, with Shen Dao contributing.

Kenneth Winston emphasizes the welfare espoused by Han Fei, but while Han Fei espoused that his model state would increase the quality of life, Schneider (2018) reviews this as not being considered this a legitimizing factor; rather, a side-effect of good order. He focused on the functioning of the state, the ruler's role as guarantor within it, and aimed in particular at making the state strong and the ruler the strongest person within it.[36]

In contrast to its term, even the early scholarship of Feng Youlan (1948) considered it incorrect to associate the thinkers with jurisprudence, describing them as teaching methods of organization and leadership for the governing of large areas. The term Legalist is apparently of unknown origin. Creel saw it to "contrast strangely" with Han Fei blaming Shen Buhai, as the opposite of his doctrine from Shang Yang, for concentrating all of his attention on administrative technique and neglecting law (or more broadly Hansen, the public Fa.) Given its English history, Creel suggested the term may be Franciscan derived as a kind of mutual sympathy, essentially an inaccurate, distorting slur giving "undue prominence" to the harsh penalties of Shang Yang from a time when Shen Buhai had been largely forgotten. Goldin suggests similar religious origins for the English term.

Still considering Legalism to have explorative value, professor Tao Jiang (2021) regards part of Creel's work as the differentiation of Shen Buhai, Fa and the Fajia from Legalist interpretation. Making a study of the Shen Buhai fragments, seeing remarkable similarities between the Han Feizi and the fragments, noting imperial China as never fully accepting the role of law and jurisprudence, taking the managerial Shen Buhai branch as predominantly influential, and seeing the Shangjunshu as also sometimes using Fa administratively, in Creel's opinion, while one might say that the members of the Fajia played a great role in the basic establishment of traditional Chinese government, one cannot say that Legalists did. Moreover, their branches often had different interests historically, with Shen's branch often opposing penal punishment.

With Creel, Schwarz, Graham, Hansen, and Ivanhoe as primary references, amongst other works on the Mohists, the Oxford (2011) presents the term Legalism as having interpreted Fa primarily as law, where anciently it did not specifically represent law. The Oxford roots Fa in the easily applied Standards (Fa) and models of the Mohists, still taking law as a kind, but being conceptually closer to performance standards represented by tools providing shape, weight and length. The Fajia's mention in the Routledge's History of Chinese Philosophy would take Fa with regards law as primarily concerned with weights, measures, width of chariots etc., only derivatively including penal law as "explicit public formulations of punishments mechanically geared to named wrongs."

Benjamin I. Schwartz (1985), with reference to the Mohists, noted the inaccuracy of law in many cases, translating it as model, standard, copy, or imitation, with reference to the carpenter's square, compass and builder's plumb-line. The behavior of Mozi's ruler acts as Fa for the noble's and officials as in Confucianism, moving towards "prescriptive method or techne", describing craft and political technique. In contrast to Hansen, Schwarz still regarded Fa as an alternate means to social control from Li.

A.C. Graham (1989) takes takes particular note of the precedent of the Confucian Mencius, whose Fa, apart from models, exemplars and names, includes such physical characteristics as statistics, scales, volumes, consistencies, weights, sizes, densities, distances, and quantities. Accepting distinctions regarding Shen Buhai, in contrast to Creel and Hansen, Graham still viewed Fa as shifting from persons to be imitated towards impersonal relations of bureaucracy, "contracting" Standards (Fa) towards law as paired with and backed by parallels of reward and punishment as early as 600bc, albeit piecemeal. Outside of logical contexts, Graham notes Fa as representing a "standard or exemplar to be imitated", which is still illustrated geometrically.

Sinologist Chad Hansen locates Legalist interpretation, if applied too broadly, in translation; Chinese characters are held to change meaning more often than words in other languages. The political thought of the Fajia have been said to resemble something like Legal positivism. Those who know Chinese, armed with a dictionary, translate it as law. When any of the others schools use Fa, it refers to measurement standards and exemplars. Han Fei says: "If the ruler has regulations based on Fa (measurement standards) and criteria and apply these to the mass of ministers, then the he cannot be dupped by cunning and fraud." Hansen suggests that laws cannot generally prevent deception. The meaning shared with the other schools can, comparing measurements against standards.[37]

While Feng Youlan's view assumed the existence of three groups preceding Han Fei, Creel saw however no evidence of a Shen Dao "school". Han Fei criticizes Shen Buhai for lacking Fa, which Creel's earlier scholarship elaborates as law, statute, decree, reward and punishment, and Gongsun for lacking Shu, providing no method for control of the ministers. 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.

Although the most frequently used term to describe Shen Buhai's doctrine, Han Fei's Shu (technique) does not appear in the Shen Buhai fragments. Only Shu (数 numbers) does, and only twice, although Creel takes this as also used in the sense of technique. Also describing wu-wei and Xing-Ming as techniques of government, although Shu is often translated as technique modernly, Creel more often translated Shu as method, as did Graham and Hansen.

Recalled by Tao Jiang, Creel takes Shu as a variety of Fa. Taken more broadly, unlike Graham neither did Creel or subsequently Hansen regard Fa as necessarily shifting towards law. While during the Warring States period law became prominent, and "we might expect Fa as law would become also more prominent", it is 'not clear' that it did. Fa as law appears to be newer than method or even technique, as represented by the term fa-shu, or method technique. While the development of Fa follows a logical progression, it is not a series of steps but "rather a scale of infinite gradations, like a spectrum."

Creel's broader argument says: "In the Zuo Zhuan Fa is fairly common, using Fa in the sense of law 'almost two thirds of the time.'" But it also uses it in the sense of regulation, example, model and to imitate. The Zhan Guo Ce (Strategems of the Warring Stated period) has Fa as law a little more than half the time. In the Guoyu (book) (Discourses of the States) Fa occurs as law less than half the time. In the Mozi, it occurs as law rarely, representing model almost half the time, and method or technique three times more frequently than law, particularly in relation to military procedure.

Accepting the unity of Fa and Shu, Graham took Han Fei as "distinguishing between law as public and method as private", with the need to distinguish varieties of Fa possibly sharpened by the contrast between Lord Yang and Shen Buhai, the latter who "did not use Shu (technique) but included it within Fa (standard)". Hansen would note the Qin empire as adopting the term Lu for their legal code, a term used rarely in older texts.

Although distinguishing the more standard or uniform usage of Shang Yang's Fa as including reward and punishment across the population, from the managerial practice of Shen Buhai, Hansen notes Han Fei as connecting his own practice of reward and punishments with Shu, in which ministers are held to performance standards they set for themselves, as hardly a Legalist practice. Han Fei considers shu nonsensical without objective standards (fa) independent of the ruler's desires, whose key aspect is it's inevitable, mechanical nature.[43]

As at least suitable to a basic introduction, Sinologist Chris Fraiser of the Oxford elaborates a modern interpretation of the three elements as attributable to their posthumous synthesis under Han Fei. Although discussed elsewhere, he does not for instance reference Feng Youlan here, whose scholarship is quite old anyway. Fraiser says: "The Legalists proposed a number of keys to successful government, which Han Fei draws together into a coherent system. He credits his precedessors with articulating three crucial concepts in particular: fa (standards,laws), which he attributes to Shang Yang; shu (arts, techniques), which he attributes to Shen Buhai; and shi (position,power), which he attributes to Shen Dao. He criticizes shortcomings in the approaches of all three men while showing how their common ideas can be combined into a cogent, unified theory."

Mr. Fraser defines Han Fei's Fa as including clear, explicit, specific, publicly promulgated standards of conduct encompassing laws, standards for satisfactory job performance, criteria for military and bureaucratic promotion, and regulation of the general population. Han Fei aims to replace inherited moral teachings and sage kings with Fa and its officials. Objective standards prevent deception of the ruler, their transparency prevents official corruption or abuse, and their exactness and public knowledge prevent bending or violation, controlling the population and limiting official power. Fa eliminates differences in treatment between the population and the bureaucracy or aristocracy.

Mr. 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, whose doctrine under Han Fei is called Xing-Ming. Shu is in part an inheritance of the Mohists who advocated meritocracy, and the doctrine of the rectification of names, which is shared with the Confucians and others.

Mr. Fraser elaborates Shi as connoting institutional power or advantageous position, wielded to implement the standards of conduct and administrative techniques. Based on the idea of 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. It is secondly based on the idea of ruling and controlling a large number of people, which power and position can accomplish, but charisma cannot. Shi renders moral worth redundant. From a position of power, the ruler employs Fa, wields the handles of life and death, and uses techniques to manage the administration. [44]

While critical of the category itself, as noted Goldin actually devotes much of his essay to elaborating a variety of Fa. As with Hansen, Goldin makes an anti-Legalist comparison between the thinkers.

Goldin takes a tendency to "extol Han Fei as great synthesizer" at the expense of others as a sophisticated falsification, 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 says that Shen Buhai speaks of ‘technique’ (shu) and Gongsun Yang standards (fa). As Goldin notes, Shen Buhai "referred to fa quite often". As Creel notes, while Han Fei differentiates Shen Buhai using the term Shu, he does also quote Shen Buhai as using Fa. Goldin's critique nonetheless clarifies a view of the subject against the old three elements scheme.

As a critique of Legalism, Goldin says that that "it would be inappropriate to confine (Han Fei's) fa to the meaning of 'law'”, and as a critique of Han Fei, that "if anyone deserves to be recognized as a member of fajia, it is Shen Dao, who was criticized by Xunzi for being 'beclouded by fa'" (as opposed, notably, to shih). Goldin compares Shen Dao's Fa with Shen Buhai as an "impersonal administrative technique of determining rewards and punishments in accordance with a subject’s true merit" (according to Creel for Shen Buhai, more in the way of selection and promotion). Goldin does also consider Shen Dao as sometimes using Fa in a more Legalistic sense.

As a critique of Han Fei 's singular element for Gongsun Yang in Fa, Goldin takes Gongsun as addressing many other administrative questions from standards (Fa). Goldin says that Gongsun institutes a "principle of mutual responsibility such that each member of the group would be liable for the misconduct of any other", and "institutes a rigidly stratified society in which one’s status was tied entirely to one’s service to the state". Presenting Gongsun as also a military reformer, Goldin recalls Mark Edward Lewis, with Gongsun Yang’s "reorganization of the military" going so far as to redraw the map of Qin 秦", dividing up the countryside into an equalized grid, with blocks of rectangular land and evenly spaced agricultural fields.

Goldin refers here to the village watch groups themselves, rather than the penal law or standards they are compared against, which the Routledge does take as Fa (derivatively included as mechanically geared named wrongs). But to quote Pines: "The institutions of the state, fa in its broadest meaning, should be designed so as to channel social forces toward desirable social and political ends. This approach... is the hallmark of Shang Yang’s intellectual audacity." Hence, service to the state's standards, in Shang Yang's case agriculture and war.

Goldin concludes with regards Fa and Legalism that "Even in imperial China, fa tended to mean something more like “government program” or “institution” than “law”—as in, for example, the failed “Green Sprouts Policy” (Qingmiao fa 青苗法), which was Wang Anshi’s 王安石 (1021-1086) attempt to establish a government credit bureau."

Tao Jiang says: "Fa in the classical Chinese context has a different semantic range and connotations from law in the contemporary Western context. Fa can refer to method, standard, regulation, law, model, or (as a verb) to follow, etc. Hence, translating fa as law does not do justice to how the term is used and what it encompasses in the texts involved." Tao Jiang takes Goldin's common definition of Fa between Shen Buhai and Shen Dao as most relevant.

Recalled by Tao Jiang, Chinese 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." This is not to say that Shen Dao does not discuss several other concepts, including human dispositions and professional virtues.

Tao Jiang otherwise takes Goldin as arguing that "Other well-known fajia tools include shu and shi. Therefore, from such a perspective it is misleading to single out fa as representing the core idea of those thinkers grouped under the nomenclature fajia or Legalism." Unfortunately, Tao Jiang does not reference a particular page, and while Goldin attempts to diversify Gongsun Yang, he does not discuss Shi. On the other hand, he reiterates Shen Buhai and Shen Dao as focused on Fa.

In defense of the Fajia against its purported opponent, Tao Jiang recalls Creel with Fa as coming to represent law, administrative method, and even managerial technique (Shu) as covering the bulk of their thought. Tao Jiang takes the Fajia as holding in common a focus in the institutionalization of political power, and a questioning of the moral values of the Confucians, disputing an assumed connection between personal virtue and political authority. Apart from Fa's generality, it has been argued that they are all in fact focused on Fa (Soon-ja Yang).

Although without Tao Jiang as reference, Pines subsequently abandons the Fa critique in favor of the Fa tradition. Pine's only remaining subsequent criticism of Fajia is the scope of the movement and the term's analytical usefulness. While Goldin states that "'Agriculture and war' (nong zhan 農戰) may have been (Gongsun's) single most important slogan", Goldin and Pines note that while fa can as often refer to “standards,” “models,” “norms,” “methods,” and the like, sometimes it refers to the entirety of political institutions. Although not in this case by direct reference, Pines differentiates Shu along similar lines to Graham's private arcanum, its private usage by the ruler having different consequences from its public manifestation.[45][1]

Having previously used the popular term Legalist, with reference to Goldin, Pines (2023), modern translator for the Book of Lord Shang (2017), now characterizes them as the Fa tradition, calling them Fa thinkers. The term is shared by an as yet unpublished multi-authored work, the Dao Companion to China's fa Tradition. As stated by their publisher, the Dao Companions aim to provide the most comprehensive and up-to-date introductions to various aspects of Chinese philosophy.

Pines accounts the term Legalism as focusing the subject on comparisons with a modern rule of law, with such discussions common in early modern scholarship, undercuting the depth of the subject for questions that were not necessarily of primary importance for the theorists. Moreover, although with reference to the new work Pines takes law to be a correct translation for Fa in many contexts, he reiterates that it also often refers to “standards,” “models,” “norms,” and “methods". As mentioned, Shang Yang is generally taken to be the most Legalist of them if anything.

Tao Jiang (2021), as unfortunately unreferenced on Pine's page but otherwise considered by him a major achievement in the purportedly multi-authored Tao Jiang on the Fa Tradition, had previously argued for the legitimacy of Fajia within scholarship as a considered historical category denoting the commonality of Fa between the statesmen; Creel used it. Pine's Fa thinker's shares it's terminology of Thinker with Tao Jiang, Pine's review lauding the work as "engaging the thinkers as theorists rather than mere statesmen, immersed in a dialog with earlier thinkers and texts." While Creel's "disparate statesmen" is referenced by the Oxford, Creel did also refer to them as "Fajia thinkers."

Fajia's term is misleading, Pines says, because it implies a self-aware, organized intellectual current commensurate with the followers of Confucius 孔子 (551–479 BCE) or Mozi 墨子 (ca. 460–390 BCE), whereas no early thinker identified himself as a member of the Fajia (or "School of Fa.") As opposed to this, Tao Jiang emphasizes their political prominence as unusual among classical thinkers, standing "at the beginning of a top-down political revolution that would radically transform the subsequent political history of China."

Although characterizing Fa thinkers as political realists, as defended modernly to be more or less legitimate, Pines takes its usage as a designation to give the impression that "the opponents of fajia were mere idealists, which was not the case."[2][1][48][49]

What Pines terms the evolutionary view of history was regarded by the early scholarship of Feng Youlan (1948) as a commonality between Gongsun Yang and Han Fei. Discussed in our Realism introduction, Graham (1989) less radically formulates its philosophy as starting "not from how society ought to be but how it is", into which the tradition can be fitted more broadly. Graham adds to the two the Guanzi, which to the current's benefit is a text which may have been written even after the Han Feizi.

However, Creel did not epouse the more evolutionary progressivism we discuss here as a view of Shen Buhai. In contrast to Shang Yang, Shen's fragments take no issue in quoting the Analects. If taken as an extension of the subject, we cannot yet suggest Creel's Shen Bhai "branch" or post-Qin figures as noted for it.

While a changing with the times paradigm was common apart from the Confucians regardless, the difference has been taken more to be more matter of emphasis, and the elucidation in particular of a view held in the Book of Lord Shang. Even adding additional figures we can only present the more "progressive" variation of this tendency as more along the lines of the Shang Yang current or Qin-influenced figures.

Feng Youlan took the "Legalists" as fully understanding that needs change with the times. Admitting that people may have been more virtuous anciently, they maintained that this was due to material circumstances. Han Fei believes that new problems require new solutions. Although a view of history as a process of change may be common modernly, Feng Youlan suggests it contrasted with the beliefs of Ancient China.

In what Graham calls a "highly literary fiction in a stilted parallelistic style", the Book of Lord Shang opens with a debate held by Duke Xiao of Qin, seeking to "consider the changes in the affairs of the age, inquire into the basis for correcting standards, and seek the Way to employ the people." Gongsun attempts to persuade the Duke to change with the times, with the Shangjunshu citing him as saying: "Orderly generations did not [follow] a single way; to benefit the state, one need not imitate antiquity."

While Xun Kuang's doctrine held human nature to be bad, noting the existence of differences with regards Shen Buhai, Graham compared the "Legalists", Han Fei in particular, with the Malthusians, as "unique in seeking a historical cause of changing conditions", namely population growth. Human nature is a Confucian issue. The statesmen acknowledge that an underpopulated society only need moral ties. The Guanzi text sees punishment as unnecessary in ancient times with an abundance of resources, making it a question of poverty rather than human nature. Graham otherwise considers the customs current at the time as having no significance to them.

Hu Shih (essays 1919–1962) calls Xun Kuang, Han Fei and Li Si "champions of the idea of progress through conscious human effort," with Li Si abolishing the feudal system, and unifying the empire, law, language, thought and belief, presenting a memorial to the throne in which he condemns all those who “refused to study the present and believed only in the ancients on whose authority they dared to criticize."

Hu Shih quotes a song by Xun Kuang.

You glorify Nature and meditate on her:

Why not domesticate and regulate her?
You follow Nature and sing her praise:
Why not control her course and use it? … … … …
Therefore, I say: To neglect man’s effort and speculate about Nature,

Is to misunderstand the facts of the universe.

As a counterpoint, Han Fei or Shen Dao do still employ argumentative reference to 'sage kings'; Han Fei claims the distinction between the ruler's interests and private interests are said to date back to Cangjie, while government by Fa is said to date back to time immemorial. Tao Jiang takes Han Fei's statements in this regard seriously, with Han Fei considering the demarcation between public and private a "key element" in the "enlightened governance" of the former kings.[55]

While Shen Buhai and Shen Dao's current may not have been hostile to Confucius,[13]^: 64 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").[56] 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.[57]

Intending his Dao (way of government) to be both objective and publicly projectable,[25]^: 352 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.[58][59][60] 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.[60]

Linking the "public" sphere with justice and objective standards, for Han Fei, the private and public had always opposed each other.[61] Taking after Shang Yang he lists the Confucians among his "five vermin",[62] and calls the Confucian teaching on love and compassion for the people the "stupid teaching" and "muddle-headed chatter",[63] the emphasis on benevolence an "aristocratic and elitist ideal" demanding that "all ordinary people of the time be like Confucius' disciples".[58] Moreover, he dismisses it as impracticable, saying that "In their settled knowledge, the literati are removed from the affairs of the state ... What can the ruler gain from their settled knowledge?",[64] and points out that "Confucianism" is not a unified body of thought.[65]

In opposition to Confucian family sentiment, Tao Jiang (2021) notes 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:[66]

Judging from the tales handed down from high antiquity and the incidents recorded in the Spring and Autumn Annals, those men who violated the laws, committed treason, and carried out major acts of evil always worked throughsome 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. (Watson trans. 2003, 89)

Creel (1970) saw the difference between the Han Feizi and the Book of Lord Shang to be "striking". Its method for personnel control, let alone control of a bureaucracy, is very simple, consisting in mutual surveillance and reward and punishment, with an emphasis on promoting agriculture and war. Terming its ilk the Shang Yang "branch" or "wing", but not considering it as favored in China as that of bureaucracy, Creel only elaborated its branch as favored by Emperor Wu of Han. Michael Loewe (1978) notes the Qin as more sophisticated than would be suggested by the dogma of the Book of Lord Shang alone, while more modernly Pines notes the "simplistic emphasis on agriculture" and suppression of commerce as eventually abandoned by the Qin.

Presenting no reference pertaining to the direct subject, professor Huang Kejian is included as adjunct narrative. Huang Kejian contrasts figures like Li Kui, Wu Qi, and Shang Yang (Gongsun) as early Legalists. In line with Han Fei and Creel's division along Shu lines, the Early Legalists represent figures for Huang who did not yet realize the limited potential of Fa for law, and the significance of Shu, contributing to the downfall of some of its members as including Gongsun himself. Huang moreover regards Gonguns unification of reward, punishment, and education, as creating a culture shock. Taking an older three elements if not Legal positivist view of the subject, despite noting Fa's essentially Mohist roots, he only regards Fa as amoral law with a secondary anti-ministerial function.

Goldin quotes Han Fei as criticizing Zichan's method of rule as lacking Shu, "requiring many things", being uncanny ability, shrewdness, circumstances, and indeed Zichan's sensitive ear. Zichan's rule is talented and wise, and elevating criminology to an art form, requires a genius like Zichan to catch all villains. Han Fei is interested not in art but technique (Shu), being reproducible procedures performable by "common ministers without extraordinary skills."

In an account preceding but similar to that of Gongsun's agricultural and other reforms, Li Kui's reforms lead to wealth and strength in Gongsun's native Wei state. As a figure lacking Shu, Gongsun ultimately did not believe that the method of rule really mattered as long as the state was rich, and tried to dispense with the selection of exceptional men through insurance mechanisms while attacking moral discussion as empowering ministers. In contrast to Gongsun, though seeking at the motivation of his subjects, Han Fei is much more skeptical of self-interest despite also aiming to channel it in service of the ruler and state.

In contrast to Confucianism and Daoism, Huang Kejian takes the Legalist pursuit of profit and achievement, or devoting "not to virtue but to law", quite fatally. Essentially, Fa asks the results and not the motivation, de-emphasizing concepts like virtue. While effective in a feudal state, it "completely ignores issues pertaining to an individual's existence" such as individual rights.

Hence, the scope of Fa in this regard will be limited. With an emphasis on measurement to the exclusion of other considerations, its legal usage tends not to move beyond penal codes toward a system of civic regulation, orienting its development towards Shu, or tact and method in managing a bureaucracy. Huang concludes that Fa "has no recognizable connection to the modern concept of law"; an accessory to wealth and strength, it does not inspire or concern itself with a conception of rights, nor does "rectifying chaos" or correcting weights promise justice, a value Huang considers "intricately tied" to Roman law.[67]

In contrast to more recent western views of the subject as not constituting a major school or movement, Vitality Rubin, a contemporary of Creel in the Soviet Union, took Legalism to be Imperial China's first ideology, and a major competitor to Confucianism, based in the Qin unification as a major event. Despite Han Fei's imprisonment and suicide, Graham took Han Fei as "the most immediately relevant to his times of all Chinese thinkers, the theoretician of the policies by which the First Emperor and Li Ssu united China and laid the foundations of the bureaucratized empire which replaced Zhou feudalism."

Taking Creel as antagonist with regards a magnification of Shen Buhai, and proposing a greater historical impact that might be supposed by Sima Qian for Gongsun Yang, professor Tao Jiang recalls Francis Fukuyama's Origins of Political Order (2011) in regarding China under the Qin as the first Weberian modern state. Tao Jiang counts the Fajia, with Gongsun as a pivotal figure, as instrumental in bringing about a "new model of powerful states, drastically changing the trajectory of Chinese and world political history."

Primarily a comparative with Xijinging, Shiping Hua in Chinese Legality still passes over Gongsun to grant the role to Han Fei as advocating law and the elimination of aristocratic privileges, leading to a strengthened Qin's eventual defeat of the other six rival kingdoms.[68]

As previously noted, 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. Hence, Creel believed Shu term originally had the sense of numbers, with implicit roots in statistical or categorizing methods, using record-keeping in financial management as a numerical measure of accomplishment. He notes command of finance as generally held by the head of government from the beginning of the Zhou dynasty; an example of auditing dates to 800 BCE, and 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"(Creel), being the control of and relations between ruler and minister which he characterized as Wu Wei (a kind of tactical non-activity 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."[1] 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.[72][73][14]^: 51[34]^: 283[25]^: 359[13]^{: 80–81, 93, 100, 103}

In the Guanzi the artisan's Shu is explicitly compared to that of the good ruler.[74] 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.[75]

The Han dynasty Lunheng says: "People themselves posses the knowledge to decieve others, but when they are to persuade rulers they need a special art (shu) to motivate the superiors--just as super men (commanders) themselves posses a powerful braveness that inspires awe in others."[76]

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.[77]

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.[78]

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.[79] 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.[75]

"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.[80][81]

Han Fei

Detail of The Spinning Wheel, by Chinese artist Wang Juzheng, Northern Song Dynasty (960–1279)[82]

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, otherwise translator for the 1928 Book of Lord Shang.[83]

Despite the penal associations in the Han era, and the association of the term Xing with punishment in Han times, Creel suggests that the term did not originally mean punishment. Moreover, Creel finds it highly unlikely that Shen used punishments in his own time, with Shen's fragments quoted as saying the ruler practices Xing-Ming while lacking punishment, and the apparent absence of the doctrine or practice of uniform reward and punishment in his state.

Liu Xiang and Creel both 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."[84]

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.[85]

Ming-shi discussions are prominent in the Han Feizi,[86] 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.[87]

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").[13]^: 83[88][89] Two anecdotes by Han Fei provide examples: The Logician Ni Yue argued that a white horse is not a horse, and defeated all debaters, but was still tolled at the gate. In another, the chief minister of Yan pretended to see a white horse dash out the gate. All of his subordinates denied having seen anything, save one, who ran out after it and returned claiming to have seen it, and was thereby identified as a flatterer.[89]

Shen Buhai's personnel control, or rectification of names (such as titles) worked thereby for "strict performance control" (Hansen) correlating claims, performances and posts.[25]^: 359 It would become a central tenant of both Legalist statecraft[90] 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.[14]^: 57

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.[91][89][92] The correct articulation of Ming is considered crucial to the realization of projects.[91][90]

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.[93][11]^: 90

Zhaoming mirror frame, Western Han dynasty

Sinologist Chad Hansen characterizes Shen Buhai's Shu or techniques as primarily Wu Wei, aimed at "preventing the usual drain and flow of the ruler's power to ministers", and secondarily a rectification of names for personnel control. 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, and can therefore, Roger T. Ames says, be considered his foremost technique.

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, Shen Buhai's ruler's strategies 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."[91][13]^: 65

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 (or "Chinese Legalists"), 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.[94][95][13]^: 99[25]^: 359

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,[13]^: 62–63[11]^: 92 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.[13]^: 64[96]^: 172

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.[97]

Shen'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. However, Creel also 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.[13]^: 65–66[95][91]

Adherence to the use of technique in governing requires the ruler not engage in any interference or subjective consideration.[98] 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."[98]

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."[98][99]

Yin also aimed at concealing the ruler's intentions, likes and opinions.[98] 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.[13]^: 67[14]^: 35

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."[13]^: 66[100][101]^: 185

Said obscuration was to be achieved together with the use of Method (Fa). Not acting himself, he can avoid being manipulated.[11]^: 92

Despite such injunctions, it is clear that the ruler's assignments would still be completely up to him.[102]

Creel elaborates a number of figures as potentially influenced by Shen Buhai, including Emperor Qinshihuang, Han figures Jia Yi, Emperor Wen of Han, Emperor Jing of Han, Chao Cuo, Dong Zhongshu, Gongsun Hong, and Emperor Xuan of Han. Emperor Wen of Sui is recorded as having withdrawn his favour from the Confucians, giving it to "the group advocating Xing-Ming and authoritarian government." Although a Confucian-oriented minister, Zhuge Liang is noted (by others) as attaching great importance to the work of Han Fei and Shen Buhai.

Michael Loewe considered Creel correct to distinguish between the stands of "Legalism", but questions the thrust of tracing lineages between the personas as a historical method. Loewe characterizes them as sympathizers of imperial government over that of the small states, endeavoring to permanently establishment imperial government without the dangers that destroyed the Qin.

Emperor Qinshihuang erected an inscription naming himself as taking control of the government and for the first time establishing Xing-Ming, a retroactive terminology for Shen Buhai's method utilized by Han Fei. Although Han Fei may be noted as relevant to the Emperor, Shen Buhai has his own historical relevance.

As mentioned previously, Sima Qian names Jia Yi as an advocate of Shen Buhai and Shang Yang, even though Jia Yi would not seem to be not an advocate of Shang Yang. With the encouragement of the Emperor Wen of Han, who the Shiji and Hanshu both regard as being basically fond of Xing-Ming, Jia Yi drew up "complete plans for revising the institutions of government and reorganizing the bureaucracy", which Emperor Wen put into effect. Although exiled by Emperor Wen under factional pressures, Jia Yi was sent to tutor one of Wen's sons, Liu Yi/Prince Huai of Liang.

Bringing together Confucian and Daoist discourses, Jia Yi describes Shen Buhai's Shu as a particular method of applying the Dao, or virtue. He uses the imagery of the Zhuangzi of the knife and hatchet as examples of skillful technique in both virtue and force, saying "benevolence, righteousness, kindness and generosity are the ruler's sharp knife. Power, purchase, law and regulation are his axe and hatchet."[103]

Heir successor Emperor Jing of Han also had two mentors in the doctrines of Shen Buhai, and appointed another Legalist, Chao Cuo. Chao Cuo is regarded by the Hanshu as a student of the doctrines of Shen Buhai, Shang Yang and Xing-Ming. Unlike Jia Yi, he does appear to take interest in Shang Yang.

Following the Rebellion of the Seven Kingdoms, Emperor Jing reformed criminal penalties to reduce injustices and punishments.

An advocate for the civil service examinations, Dong Zhongshu's writings on personnel testing and control use the terminology of Ming-shih, another (older) term for the method of Shen Buhai, in a manner "hardly distinguishable" from the Han Feizi,(Creel) but unlike Han Fei, advocate against punishments. Dong's advocacy aside, the civil service examination did not come into existence until its support by Gongsun Hong, who wrote a book on Xing-Ming. Thus, Creel credits the origination of the civil service examination in part to Shen Buhai.

The Emperor Xuan of Han was still said by Liu Xiang to have been fond of reading Shen Buhai, using Xing-Ming to control his subordinates and devoting much time to legal cases[104]

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.[114] 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.[115] 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).[10]

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.[116]

Gernet considered the "merit" of the "Legalists" to be the understanding that the power of the state resides in social and political institutions. Their "originality" lies in their aim to subject the state to them.[117][96]^: 175 Similarly, Graham (1989) concludes that 'Legalism' marks a shift from the "man-to-man relations of feudalism." 'Legalism' is lacking on discussions on De, or awe-inspiring personal potency. Power shifts to simply occupying institutional positions.[118]

Like Shen Buhai, Shen Dao largely focused on statecraft (Fa), and Confucian reformer Xun Kuang discusses him in this capacity, never referencing Shen Dao in relation to power, which he attributes to Shen Buhai.[119][120][121][1][11]^: 93 Shen Dao is remembered for his theories on shi (lit. "situational advantage", but also "power" or "charisma") because Han Fei references him in this capacity.[112]

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."[122]

The thrust of Han Fei's argument is negating 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 based on order like clearly defined "laws."(Fa) But, power and position will at least enable the ruler to enact these.[123]

In the words of Han Fei,

The reason why I discuss the power of position is for the sake of ... mediocre rulers. These mediocre rulers, at best they do not reach the level of [the sages] Yao or Shun, and at worst they do not behave like [the arch-tyrants] Jie or Zhou. If they hold to the 'law' (Fa) and depend on the power of their position, there will be order; but if they abandon the power of their position and turn their backs on the 'law', there will be disorder. Now if one abandons the power of position, turns one's back on the law, and waits for a Yao or Shun, then when a Yao or a Shun arrives there will indeed be order, but it will only be one generation of order in a thousand generations of disorder ... Nevertheless, if anyone devotes his whole discourse to the sufficiency of the doctrine of position to govern All-under-Heaven, the limits of his wisdom must be very narrow.[124]

Searching out the causes of disorder, Shen Dao observed splits in the ruler's authority.[105]^: 122 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."[34]^: 268[125][126] Shen Dao's theory may have been borrowed from the Book of Lord Shang,[11]^: 93[127] if he received any portion of it.[128] It may otherwise have originated in Shen Dao's abandonment of a singular Fa, or Standard, as correct.[25]^: 317

For Shen Dao, "Power" (勢 shi) refers to the ability to compel compliance; it requires no support from the subjects, though it does not preclude this.[112] (shi's) merit is that it prevents people from fighting each other; political authority is justified and essential on this basis.[112] 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 ..."[126]

Talent cannot be displayed without power.[129] 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."[112] Leadership is not a function of ability or merit, but is given by some process, such as giving a leader to a group.[114] "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 ..."[61][114]

While moral capability is usually disregarded by the Fajia, 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.[112] But his ideas otherwise constitute a "direct challenge" to Confucian virtue.[130] 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".[112][131][96]^: 174

Like Shen Dao, Han Fei seems to admit that virtue or charisma can have persuasive power even in his own time.[132] However, he considers virtue instrumental, and Wu-wei, or nonaction, as its essence.[133] Furthermore, he criticizes virtue as insufficient; power should be amassed through "laws" (fa),[127] and unlike Shen considers government by moral persuasion and government by power (shi) mutually incompatible.[112]

The ruler's authority (shi) should depend neither on his own personal qualities or cultivation, or even upon Shen Dao's position or power, but on Fa (law or checks and balances), a more vital source for his authority. Shang Yang and Han Fei's rejection of charisma (shi) as ineffective underwrite their rejection of the Confucian ruler.[25]^: 366[96]^{: 170, 181} Han Fei does stress that the leader has to occupy a position of substantial power before he is able to use these or command followers. Competence or moral standing do not allow command.[129]

For Han Fei, in order to actually influence, manipulate or control others in an organization and attain organizational goals it is necessary to utilize techniques (shu), regulation (fa), and rewards and punishment – the "two handles".Reward and punishment determine social positions – the right to appoint and dismiss. In line with Shi, these should never be relegated. The ruler must be the sole dispenser of honors and penalties. If these are delegated to the smallest degree, and people are appointed on the basis of reputation or worldly knowledge, then rivals will emerge and the ruler's power will fall to opinion and cliques (the ministers). Allowing him to prevent collapse by combating or resolving ministerial disagreements and ambitions, the rulers exclusive authority outweighs all other considerations, and Han Fei requires that the ruler punish disobedient ministers even if the results of their actions were successful. Goods may not be considered meaningful outside of his control.[117][134][135][136][137]

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.[143]

Sinologist Hansen views Han Fei as "playing an important role in furthering the authoritarian distortion of Daoism", which would later be inherited by Neo-Confucianism.[25]^: 345 Although Han Fei's use of Wu-Wei may have been derivative of Daoism, he 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"). Randall Peerenboom argue's that Han Fei's Shu (technique) is arguably more of a "practical principle of political control" than any state of mind.[144][145] Han Fei nonetheless 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.[146][147][148][149][101]^{: 186–187}[150]

Han Fei's commentary on the Tao Te Ching asserts that perspectiveless knowledge – an absolute point of view – is possible, though the chapter may have been one of his earlier writings.[25]^: 371

Han Fei was notoriously focused on what he termed Xing-Ming (Chinese: 刑名; pinyin: xíngmíng) Possibly referring to the drafting and imposition of standardized terms Xing-MIng 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 punished according to the proposed job description and whether the results fit the task entrusted by their word, which a real minister fulfils.

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 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." 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 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.[151][152][153][154][11]^: 81[34]^: 284[155][13]^: 86[13]^{: 83, 87, 104}[25]^{: 308, 349, 365, 367, 370, 372}

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.[3]^: 59[13]^{: 100, 102, 105} Han Fei connects his own rewards and punishments under his theory of Shu (managerial technique) in connection with Xing-Ming (correlating performances to titles).[25]^: 367[142]

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.[156] 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.[143]

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.[157][158] Combining Shen Buhai's methods with Shang Yang's insurance mechanisms, Han Fei's ruler simply employs anyone offering their services.[152]