![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
Abstract
The chapter “Objections 4” (“Nan 4”) occupies a peculiar position in Han Feizi. It comprises four historical anecdotes, each of which is centered on a speech or a short utterance that summarizes its moralizing message. Then an objector refutes this message by confronting it with a broader historical perspective, and a second debater refutes his predecessor’s views. In my essay I argue that not only are the first three anecdotes evidently borrowed from Zuozhuan, but, more significantly, the ensuing debate is based on surprisingly deep knowledge of Zuozhuan in general rather than of the specific anecdotes. The authors skillfully utilize the Zuozhuan narrative’s multivalence to undermine the moralizing message which transpires in the individual anecdotes. This reading of “Objections 4” chapter as an early ideological exegesis of Zuozhuan sheds a new light both on the early circulation of Zuozhuan and on the role of historical arguments in Han Feizi.
《難四》篇在《韓非子》中具有較特殊的地位。該篇包括四段「歷史軼聞」 (historical anecdotes)；每個故事都以賢人言論為核心，以歷史教訓爲目的。在故事結束之後，「難者」以更廣泛的歷史視野來反駁賢人的結論，而之後第三個評論者進一步反駁「難者」。本文希望證明：不僅前三段故事都是明顯地基於《左傳》，而且更值得注意的是，「難者」和反「難者」的話語也都表現出對整個《左傳》敘事（而不是對單獨的故事）具有較高的知識和深刻的理解。兩個評論者都注意到了，從《左傳》的敘事中可以得出不同的歷史結論，這些結論常常與傳統的、以道德爲核心的歷史教訓是相反的。詳解《難四》與《左傳》的關係，讓我們能夠進一步瞭解《左傳》的早期傳播，以及《韓非子》的歷史觀及其歷史論點的特徵。
Keywords:
Notes
1 For which see CitationGoldin 2011; for a slightly different angle, see CitationPines 2014.
2 In what follows for heuristic convenience I at times refer to Han Feizi as if produced by Han Fei himself. For attempts – less than satisfactory in my eyes – to discern which of Han Feizi’s chapters were authored by Han Fei himself and which are later additions, see CitationLundahl 1992; CitationZheng Liangshu 1993.
3 For Han Fei’s views of society as driven by universal self-interest, see CitationGoldin 2013b; for logical arguments, see, e.g., the “contradiction” (maodun 矛楯) concept (Han Feizi 40.3.1; Han Feizi xin jiaozhu: 945 [“Nan shi” 難勢]), and the derivative arguments in 50.2 (Han Feizi xin jiaozhu: 1129 [“Xian xue” 顯學]); for the arguments based on philological (more accurately, graphological) observations, see 49.10 (Han Feizi xin jiaozhu: 1105 [“Wu du” 五蠹]); for the origins of human society, see 49.1–49.3 (Han Feizi xin jiaozhu: 1085–1088 [“Wu du”]). All citations from Han Feizi are based on the chapter and paragraph numbers as applied in CitationChristoph Harbsmeier’s forthcoming translation (from which I freely borrow); its divisions are based in turn on Han Feizi jiaoshu. In addition, I provide references to the standard edition by Chen Qiyou (Han Feizi xin jiaozhu).
4 Perhaps the most brilliant demonstration of Han Fei’s tactic is the chapter “Loyalty and Filiality” (“Zhong xiao” 忠孝), in which stories of Confucian paragons are ridiculed because the paragons violated these two supreme values. Note that elsewhere, Han Fei readily ridicules filiality as subversive rather than conducive to the political order (Han Feizi 49.9; Han Feizi xin jiaozhu: 1104 [“Wu du”]).
5 For the Laozi exegesis, see chapters 20–21 (“Jie Lao” 解老 and “Yu Lao” 喻老) and CitationQueen 2013; for what appears as a strong impact of Laozi’s ideas on Han Fei, see, e.g., chapters 5 (“Zhu Dao” 主道), 8 (“Yang quan” 揚權), 29 (“Da ti” 大體), et saepe. See also CitationWang – Chang 1986.
6 See especially chapters 1–2 (“Chu jian Qin” 初見秦 and “Cun Han” 存韓).
7 CitationGoldin 2008 and Citation2020: 13–27; CitationSchaberg 2011; for “exemplary history,” see CitationVogelsang 2007: 223–263.
8 This is chapter 17, “Rewards and Punishments” (“Shang xing” 賞刑). For this chapter, for the forms of argumentation in the Shangjunshu, and for its chapters’ tentative dating, see CitationPines 2017.
9 As CitationVogelsang (forthcoming) points out, the Shangjunshu (as Han Feizi) adheres to “sequential” rather than “exemplary” history: since times had changed, historical exempla are no longer relevant.
10 The concept of the Mandate transfer and related interpretation of history are most vividly present in the Shujing 書經 or Shangshu 尚書 (Canon of Documents); see CitationCreel 1970: 93–100. For an example of resort to historical arguments in bolstering the Mandate ideology, see examples in CitationGentz 2017.
11 For the latter, see CitationPines 2005a; cf. CitationAllan 2016.
12 See CitationSchaberg 2001.
13 Suffice it to demonstrate this with a single example, that of the “Robber Zhi” (“Dao Zhi” 盜跖) chapter, arguably the most brilliant piece of satiric prose in preimperial China. The chapter starts with the statement that Robber Zhi was the younger brother of Liuxia Ji 柳下季 (i.e., the famous paragon of morality, Liuxia Hui 柳下惠). The problem, unnoticed by most modern scholars, is that Ji means “youngest brother,” namely, Liuxia Ji by definition could not have had a younger brother at all! For sure, Zhuangzi ridicules therewith the historical narratives as a whole. See also CitationPines 2005b: 221–222; for a different example, see CitationGoldin 2020: 22–23.
14 See, e.g., CitationKern 2003: 416–419.
15 See detailed discussion in CitationVogelsang, forthcoming. For the clearest example of the sequential historical worldview in Han Feizi and derision of those who are attracted by the irrelevant lessons from the past, see Han Feizi 49.1–49.3; Han Feizi xin jiaozhu: 1085–1088 (“Wu du”). Note, however, that in certain chapters (e.g., 6 [“You du” 有度] and 19 [“Shi xie” 飾邪]), Han Fei does resort to the legacy of the former monarchs as compelling examples of proper political conduct; see, e.g., Han Feizi 19.6 (Han Feizi xin jiaozhu: 359).
16 故明據先王，必定堯、舜者，非愚則誣也. Han Feizi 50.1; Han Feizi xin jiaozhu: 1125 (“Xian xue”).
17 故人臣毋稱堯、舜之賢，毋譽湯、武之伐，毋言烈士之高. Han Feizi 51.5; Han Feizi xin jiaozhu: 1155 (“Zhong xiao” 忠孝). Cf. Han Feizi 19.7; Han Feizi xin jiaozhu: 363 (“Shi xie”).
18 For Han Fei’s assaults on Yao and Shun, see, e.g., Han Feizi 44.9; Han Feizi xin jiaozhu: 978 (“Shuo yi” 說疑), 38.8; Han Feizi xin jiaozhu: 906 (“Nan san” 難三), and most notably 51 (“Zhong xiao”). For the appalling statement about Shun, see 51.4 (Han Feizi xin jiaozhu: 1154, “Zhong xiao”); for a possible obscene meaning of this statement, see CitationGoldin 2017.
19 For the tigers’ simile, see, e.g., Han Feizi 5.2; Han Feizi xin jiaozhu: 74 (“Zhu Dao”); Han Feizi 8.7; Han Feizi xin jiaozhu: 163 (“Yang quan”).
20 See chapter 7, “Two handles” (“Er bing” 二柄) for those examples. Tian Chang was the minister in the state of Qi, who, in 481 BCE established the Tian (Chen 陳) family dictatorship in this state. Zihan’s identity is less clear but in all likelihood he was the man who usurped the throne of the state of Song in the fourth century BCE.
21 For the importance of this chapter as hinting at Han Fei’s doubts about the rulers’ quality, see CitationGraziani 2015.
22 CitationSchaberg 2011: 407.
23 CitationSchaberg 2011: 405. The “Objections” chapters were studied by CitationZhang Suzhen 1987, whose monograph is rich in detailed analysis of the chapters but offers little broad insights. CitationZheng Liangshu’s study (Citation1993: 224–250) focused primarily on the chapters’ dating (Zheng dates them to the late period in Han Fei’s life).
24 In addition to the studies by Zhang Suzhen and Zheng Liangshu (see note 23 above), see also CitationLundahl 1992: 154–158. There is no doubt that ideologically the “Objections” chapters are consistent with Han Feizi, and there is no evidence for later (Han dynasty) materials therein. The only debatable segment in these chapters are the counter-objector’s comments in chapter “Objections 4”; see more in the last section of this article.
25 See, e.g., CitationLiu Zhenghao 1980.
27 Note that overall, the usage of ganzhi dates is extremely rare in historical anecdotes, even in the collections that clearly derive from earlier lengthier records, such as sections of the Guoyu. For instance, ganzhi dates are all but absent from the Zhanguo ce, not to speak of the Masters literature. The only text that routinely employs ganzhi dates without years and months is Mu tianzi zhuan 穆天子傳, the usage of ganzhi in which requires further discussion.
28 The “noble man’s” comments are spread as an important paratextual device (CitationKern, forthcoming) through Zuozhuan and Guoyu, but do not appear as such in standalone anecdotes. It is widely believed that the “noble man’s” voice is that of the compiler of Zuozhuan (CitationHenry 1999); for a dissenting opinion, see CitationVan Auken 2016.
29 衛孫文子聘於魯，公登亦登。叔孫穆子趨進，曰：「諸侯之會，寡君未嘗後衛君也。今子不後寡君一等，寡君未知所過也，子其少安。」孫子無辭，亦無悛容。穆子退而告人曰：「孫子必亡。[亡 ?] 臣而不後君，過而不悛，亡之本也。」Han Feizi 39.1.1; Han Feizi xin jiaozhu: 923.
30 This character is absent from several recensions of Han Feizi. See Han Feizi xin jiaozhu: 924n5. The term wang has two major meanings in Zuozhuan: “to perish” (usually with regard to a state or a lineage) or “to flee into exile” (usually with regard to a person). In light of Sun Wenzi’s eventual fate (he had to flee into exile but did not perish), the latter reading is correct.
31 Recall that the power in the state of Qi was usurped by the Tian (Chen) lineage. For a century (481–386 BCE) the Chen leaders ruled under the nominal authority of the legitimate rulers from the Jiang 姜 lineage until replacing them altogether. In the state of Jin the rulers lost their power to the ministerial lineages early in the sixth century BCE; Jin was de facto partitioned among three of these lineages (Wei 魏, Han 韓, and Zhao 趙) in 453 BCE and this situation received de jure recognition from the Zhou Son of Heaven in 403 BCE.
32 或曰：天子失道，諸侯伐之，故有湯、武。諸侯失道，大夫伐之，故有齊、晉。臣而伐君者必亡，則是湯、武不王，晉、齊不立也. Han Feizi 39.1.2; Han Feizi xin jiaozhu: 924. Note that here the meaning of wang may be closer to “perish” rather than “to go into exile.” I prefer the latter translation to fit the usage of wang in the first extract.
33 In my eyes, the composition of the bulk of Zuozhuan took place during the fifth century BCE, when the ultimate success of “usurping ministers” in Qi, Jin, Lu, Song, and other states was still hard to predict. There is much ambivalence in Zuozhuan (and its sources’) treatment of the topic of ministerial usurpation. By the fourth century BCE, the success of some of these usurpations was no longer deniable.
34 孫子君於衛，而後不臣於魯，臣之君也。君有失也，故臣有得也。不命亡於有失之君，而命亡於有得之臣，不察。魯不得誅衛大夫，而衛君之明不知不悛之臣，孫子雖有是二也，巨（= 詎）以亡？其所以亡其失所以得君也. Han Feizi 39.1.2; Han Feizi xin jiaozhu: 924. In the current editions 巨 (= 詎) is miswritten as 臣; I follow Chen’s amendment. See also Han Feizi xin jiaozhu: 925n9 for debates about the parsing of the last sentence.
35 See Zuozhuan, Cheng 7.6 and 14.1 for Sun’s intimidation of the Wei rulers; Xiang 14.4 for the expulsion of Lord Xian, and Xiang 25.15 and 26.2 for Ning Xi’s overthrow of Sun Wenzi.
36 Wei affairs in general were of little interest for the Warring States-period Masters. Whereas the ousting of Lord Xian of Wei by Sun Wenzi and his accomplice is mentioned once (Lüshi Chunqiu jiaoshi 25.6 [“Shen xiao” 慎小]), I could not identify a single reference to Sun Wenzi’s earlier career or his eventual downfall. I doubt that this information circulated outside Zuozhuan three centuries after the events took place.
37 For the importance of predictions in Zuozhuan, see CitationSchaberg 2001; cf. CitationWang He 1984.
38 非其分而取者, 眾之所奪也. Han Feizi 39.1.3; Han Feizi xin jiaozhu: 926.
39 Zuozhuan, Xiang 26.2b.
40 Shi in the Springs-and-Autumns period were the lowest segment of nobility and not elite members as in the Warring States period. For a brief summary of the changing meaning of shi, see CitationPines 2009: 116–119.
41 The Jisun, Mengsun 孟孫, and Shusun 叔孫 lineages were all established by the sons of Lord Huan of Lu 魯桓公 (r. 711–694 BCE); hence they are called “Three Huan.” The triumvirate of the Ji (Jisun), Meng (Mengsun), and Shusun leaders held the reins of power in the state of Lu from the early sixth century BCE to the end of the Springs-and-Autumns period and beyond.
42 Paul R. Goldin calls this type of argumentation (if even X, then certainly Y, given that X is less likely to occur than Y) “enthymeme of comparisons” (CitationGoldin 2005: 84).
43 魯陽虎欲攻三桓，不剋而奔齊，景公禮之。鮑文子諫曰：「不可。陽虎有寵於季氏而欲伐於季孫，貪其富也。今君富於季孫，而齊大於魯，陽虎所以盡詐也。」景公乃囚陽虎. Han Feizi 39.2.1; Han Feizi xin jiaozhu: 927.
44 或曰：千金之家，其子不仁，人之急利甚也。桓公，五伯之上也，爭國而殺其兄，其利大也。臣主之間，非兄弟之親也。劫殺之功，制萬乘而享大利，則群臣孰非陽虎也。事以微巧成，以疏拙敗。群臣之未起難也，其備未具也。群臣皆有陽虎之心，而君上不知，是微而巧也. Han Feizi 39.2.2; Han Feizi xin jiaozhu: 928.
45 For Han Fei’s insistence that self-interest is the only driving force in politics, see CitationGoldin 2013b. For Han Fei’s obsession with ministerial usurpation, see e.g., Han Feizi 5.2; Han Feizi xin jiaozhu: 74 (“Zhu Dao”); 8.8; Han Feizi xin jiaozhu: 164 (“Yang quan”), and more in CitationPines 2013.
46 Note that in Mengzi 5.3 Yang Hu himself is attributed with the statement that “the rich is no longer benevolent, the benevolent is no longer rich” (為富不仁矣；為仁不富矣).
47 陽虎貪於天下，以欲攻上，是疏而拙也。不使景公加誅於拙虎，是鮑文子之說反也。臣之忠詐，在君所行也。君明而嚴則群臣忠，君懦而闇則群臣詐。知微之謂明，無赦之謂嚴。不知齊之巧臣而誅魯之成亂，不亦妄乎！Han Feizi 39.2.2; Han Feizi xin jiaozhu: 928.
48 I did not find any reference in preimperial texts other than Zuozhuan to the role played by the Bao lineage in the downfall of Qi’s ruling house.
49 Recall that Lord Huan of Qi, the first of the five hegemons, rose to power amid fratricidal struggle.
50 或曰：仁貪不同心。故公子目夷辭宋，而楚商臣弒父，鄭去疾予弟，而魯桓弒兄，五伯兼并，而以桓律人；則是皆無貞廉也。且君明而嚴則群臣忠，陽虎為亂於魯，不成而走，入齊而不誅，是承為亂也。君明則誅，知陽虎之可以濟亂也，此見微之情也. Han Feizi 39.2.3; Han Feizi xin jiaozhu: 929.
51 See respectively, Zuozhuan, Xi 8.5; Wen 1.7; Xuan 4.2. It is not clear why Han Feizi considers the latter case yielding to a younger brother.
52 Zuozhuan, Yin 11.8.
53 For the apparent loss of interest in historical accuracy amid bitter ideological polemics of the Warring States period, see CitationPines 2020a: 88–94. A systematic analysis of different thinkers’ interest (or the lack thereof) in the veracity of the transmitted information is much desired.
56 See CitationPines 2020a: 1–94 for my arguments.
57 For a comprehensive survey of these controversies, see CitationSchaberg 2001: 315–324; CitationPines 2002: 13–39 (modified in CitationPines 2020a: 23–26); CitationLi Wai-yee 2007: 33–59, and the “Introduction” in CitationDurrant – Li – Schaberg 2016.
58 One important intervention in the content of Zuozhuan was that by the Han librarian Liu Xin 劉歆 (46 BCE – 23 CE) who may have modified the dating of certain events (CitationXu Jianwei 2017: 181–246) and even interpolated a few passages (CitationQiao Zhizhong 2016). Another change was introduced by Zuozhuan’s major commentator, Du Yu 杜預 (222–285), who interspersed the Chunqiu with Zuozhuan (CitationDurrant – Li – Schaberg 2016: lvii).
59 CitationLewis 1999: 132 (for a much more nuanced discussion of Zuozhuan, see CitationLewis 2020, 17–18). For a variety of similar identifications of Zuozhuan as a “Confucian” text, see CitationPines 2002: 260n82.
60 See Zhuzi yulei 93: 2151. For similar views of Liu Fenglu 劉逢祿 (1776–1829) and Pi Xirui 皮錫瑞 (1850–1908), see CitationLiu Fenglu 1955: 599; CitationPi Xirui 1998 [1907], j. 4: 45–47.
62 Cf. Zuozhuan, Yin 3.5 and Huan 2.1.
63 Zuozhuan, Xi 23.6e and 28.3.
64 For the former example, see, e.g., the much hailed career of the Lu minister Ji Wenzi 季文子, whose loyalty is specifically hailed in Zuozhuan, Xiang 5.10 but whose rule also marks the beginning of the eventual sidelining of the lords of Lu for the sake of the Ji (Jisun) lineage and its allies. For the latter, see, e.g., examples of moralizing speeches pronounced by officials of whom we are explicitly told that they received bribes to dupe the rulers or the allies (see, e.g., Zuozhuan, Xi 28.12, Zhao 26.4 and Zhao 27.4).
65 For an excellent discussion of how Zuozhuan allows “cynical” reading, see CitationLi Wai-yee 2007.
66 One of the topics that merits further discussion is whether or not Han Fei’s obsessive interest in ministerial usurpations came from his in-depth knowledge of Zuozhuan (which indeed abounds with the stories of usurping ministers) rather than from the contemporaneous situation, when instances of ministerial usurpations were uncommon. See more in CitationPines 2009: 100 and 244n59.
67 For the complexity of this text, see CitationPolnarov 2018.
68 This chapter and its argumentation are analyzed in CitationPines 2020b.
69 Han Feizi xin jiaozhu: 1205.
71 CitationSchaberg 2011: 407.
72 CitationSchaberg 2011: 409.
73 Han Feizi jiaoshu 49.13; Han Feizi xin jiaozhu: 1112 (“Wu du”). For the “Discourses of the Hundred Schools,” probably related to the “discourses of the former kings,” see CitationPetersen 1995.
74 Han Feizi 39.3.1; Han Feizi xin jiaozhu: 931.
75 Zuozhuan, Huan 17.8. My citations from Zuozhuan follow the numeration of passages adopted in Chunqiu Zuozhuan zhu and CitationDurrant – Li – Schaberg 2016 editions. I follow the latter translation with minor modifications.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Yuri Pines
Yuri Pines (You Rui 尤銳) is Michael W. Lipson Professor of Asian Studies, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and Visiting Professor, Institute of History, Beijing Normal University. His research focuses on early Chinese political thought, traditional Chinese political culture, early Chinese historiography, history of preimperial (pre-221 BCE) China, and comparative studies of imperial formations worldwide. His monographs include Zhou History Unearthed: The Bamboo Manuscript Xinian and Early Chinese Historiography (New York, 2020); The Book of Lord Shang: Apologetics of State Power in Early China (New York, 2017); The Everlasting Empire: The Political Culture of Ancient China and Its Imperial Legacy (Princeton, 2012); Envisioning Eternal Empire: Chinese Political Thought of the Warring States Era (Honolulu, 2009), and Foundations of Confucian Thought: Intellectual Life in the Chunqiu Period, 722–453 B.C.E. (Honolulu, 2002). He co-edited with Michal Biran and Jörg Rüpke The Limits of Universal Rule: Eurasian Empires Compared (Cambridge, 2021), with Li Wai-yee Keywords in Chinese Culture (Hong Kong, 2020), with Paul R. Goldin and Martin Kern Ideology of Power and Power of Ideology in Early China (Leiden et al., 2015), and with Lothar von Falkenhausen, Gideon Shelach and Robin D.S. Yates Birth of an Empire: The State of Qin Revisited (Berkeley, 2014). He also published over 100 articles and book chapters.