Shen Buhai
Chinese申不害

Shen Buhai (Chinese: 申不害; c. 400 BC – c. 337 BC)[1] was a Chinese essayist, philosopher, and politician. The Shiji records that he served as Chancellor of the Han state under Marquis Zhao of Han for fifteen years, from 351 BC or 354 to his supposed death in 337 BC. He died of natural causes while in office.[2] A contemporary of syncretist Shi Jiao and "Legalist" Shang Yang, he was born in the State of Zheng, and was likely a minor official there. After Han conquered Zheng in 375 BC, he rose up in the ranks of the Han officialdom, dividing up its territories and successfully reforming it.

Though not dealing in Shang Yang's doctrine of reward and punishment, his administrative innovations would be incorporated into "Chinese Legalist" statecraft by Han Fei, his most famous successor. Shen Buhai's fragments most resembles the Han Feizi, though more conciliatory.

Though the origins of the Chinese administrative system cannot be traced to any one person, prime minister Shen Buhai may have had more influence than any other in the construction of the merit system, and might be considered its founder, if not valuable as a rare pre-modern example of abstract theory of administration. Sinologist Herrlee G. Creel saw in Shen Buhai the "seeds of the civil service examination", and perhaps even the first political scientist.[3][4]: 94 

Although Sinologists Schwarz and Hansen would take Shen Dao as a more relevant Daoist forebear, Creel believed that Shen Buhai's correlation between an inactive (Wu-wei) ruler, and a handling of claims and titles likely informed the Daoist conception of the formless Dao (name that cannot be named) that "gives rise to the ten thousand things." He is credited with the dictum "The Sage ruler relies on standards and does not rely on wisdom; he relies on technique, not on persuasions."[5]

Dating

Only the questionable death date of Shen Buhai in 337 B.C. is correlated between multiple sources. He is supposed by Ch'ien Mu to have lived sixty or seventy years. The birth date of 400 B.C. is a compromise between 397 and 407 that was believed to be "safe" by German Sinologist Alfred Forke. Tao Jiang still uses it modernly; sometimes the birth date is simply skipped.

Although Shen Buhai is recorded in Sima Qian's the Historical Records as becoming Chancellor in Marquis Chao's eight year, traditionally 351, Creel suggests it more probable to date both Shen Buhai's appointment and the Marquis eighth year earlier, in 354, after the state of Wei sieged the state of Chao. As an earlier source, the Stratagems of the Warring States state that Shen Buhai had just found favor with the Marquis at the time of that event.[6]

Shenzi

Shen was known for his cryptic writing style. Because the writings attributed to him appear to be pre-Han dynasty, he is credited with writing a now extinct two chapter text, the Shenzi (申子), which is concerned almost exclusively with the philosophy of governmental administration. In 141 BC, under the influence of Confucians, the reign of Emperor Wu of Han saw Shen Buhai's name listed along with other thinkers taken as Legalist, officially banning their ideas from the government; from that point on, scholarship relating to Shen's ideas went into a steep decline, despite continued use of his foundational ideas in administration (much of which, consisting of skill and report checking, would be unavoidable).

Widely read in Han times, in comparison to the still-complete Han Feizi the Shenzi was listed as lost by the Liang dynasty (502–556). Appearing again in the bibliographies of both Tang histories, its only traces remain as quotes in surviving texts in Qunshu Zhiyao, compiled in 631, and Yilin, compiled around 786. During the Qing Dynasty, three major attempts were made to reconstruct the contents of the work, the last mention occurring in 1616, and in a library catalogue from 1700.[7] Its fragments were re-assembled by Sinologist Herrlee G. Creel (1974) in Shen Pu-Hai: A Chinese Political Philosopher of the Fourth Century B. C.

Fajia briefing

Probably never a school, organized or self-aware movement in the sense of the Mohists and Confucians, the Fa-school or Fajia would only be considered a school starting in the Han dynasty, with Sima Tan and Sima Qian essentially inventing it in the Records of the Grand Historian (Shiji). Sima Tan does not name anyone under the schools. The figures would only be assembled as the Fajia in the Hanshu, or Han History, one hundred years after him, coming to mean something like "Legalists". The Han History lists Li Kui, Shang Yang, Shen Buhai, Han Fei, Shen Dao, and Han Fei under the School of Fa (Fajia). While Han literature would regard Guan Zhong as a forefather, and Li Kui is a predecessor of Shang Yang in their native state of Wei, the figures listed are otherwise those of the Han Feizi.[8]

Originally credited by Creel as syncretic precedent for Shen Buhai's later association within the Fajia, Chapter 43 of the Han Feizi says:

Now Shen Buhai spoke about the need of Shu ("Method" or "Technique") and Shang Yang practices the use of Fa ("Standards" as including law). What is called Shu is to create posts according to responsibilities, hold actual services accountable according to official titles, exercise the power over life and death, and examine the abilities of all his ministers; these are the things that the ruler keeps in his own hand. Fa includes mandates and ordinances promulgated to the government offices, penalties that are definite in the mind of the people, rewards that are due to the careful observers of standards, and punishments that are inflicted upon those who violate orders. It is what the subjects and ministers take as a model. If the ruler is without Shu he will be overshadowed; if the subjects and ministers lack Fa they will be insubordinate. Thus, neither can be dispensed with: both are implements of emperors and kings.

Legalism briefing

With other texts only translated later, Science and Civilization in China (1956) took the "central conception" of fa as positive law expounded with "great clarity by Gongsun Yang in the Shangjunshu", under a legal positivist interpretation. Because, historically, despite the presentation of their opponents, those advocating policies derived of Shang Yang or Shen Buhai did not endorse each other's views, Creel advised that the Shen Buhai group be called "administrators", "methodists" or "technocrats", in contrast to the more "Legalist" Shang Yang. [9]

Arguing against an amoral interpretation for Han Fei, Kenneth Winston (2005) takes Peerenboom 1993 as legal positivism's late notable argument. Although dating back to Creel and Schwarz, as modernly related by the Pines Stanford Encyclopedia, fa has a significantly broader range that law.[10] As anachronisms, Kidder Smith (2003) takes the terms Legalism and Fajia as having been in Sinological disrepute by his time, which isn't to say that its members haven't been considered appropriately placed, or Legalism used conventionally.

Earlier cited by Pines, Goldin takes the reasons for avoiding the term Legalism as dating back to Creel, who says:

When Sima Tan used the name fajia for this school, apparently for the first time, he may not have intended fa to mean merely “law.” He was clearly aware that the school had two emphases, and may have availed himself of the fact that fa means both “law” and “method.” It has both of these senses (sometimes simultaneously) in fajia literature, and even in the Shangjunshu. “Method” seems to be the sense in which Shen Buhai used fa, in all of the quotations of his words known to me. The Han Feizi 韓非子 quotes Shen as saying: “What is called ‘method’ (fa) is to examine achievement [as the ground for] giving rewards, and to use ability as the basis upon which to bestow office.

A.C. Graham took Han Fei's Shu as "distinguishing between law as public and method as private", sharpened by the contrast between the two, calling method the arcanum of the ruler.

Goldin recalls Creel as "rightly emphasizing" Xingming as Shen Buhai's "most important contribution". Annotating in Creel that Shen Buhai actually uses the earlier Mingshi while lacking punishment, Goldin emphasizes Shen Buhai and Han Fei's shared concept, comparing an official’s “performance” (xing) and duties or “title” (ming), as requiring "no legal consciousness whatsoever." Although Shen Dao and Han Fei make some use of fa akin to law, with reward and punishment, they both even generally use fa similarly to Shen Buhai, that is, as an "impersonal administrative technique." With a particular quotation from Han Fei as example:

An enlightened ruler employs fa to pick his men; he does not select them himself. He employs fa to weigh their merit; he does not fathom it himself. Thus ability cannot be obscured nor failure prettified. If those who are [falsely] glorified cannot advance, and likewise those who are maligned cannot be set back, then there will be clear distinctions between lord and subject, and order will be easily [attained]. Thus the ruler can only use fa.

Tao Jiang in particular makes a defense of the Fajia's category modernly, while Pine's Stanford Encyclopedia proffers the fa tradition as a neutral general category, although still accepting Legalist interpretations as having explorative value.[11]

Legalist speculations

Sinologist Hansen (1992) recalls Benjamin Schwarz (1985) as citing Han Fei's two handles of punishment and reward as clearly part of Shu, in rebuttal to Creel's insistence that Shen Buhai was not a Legalist. As at least illustrative of Han Fei, Hansen focuses on Shu "method" or "technique" as safeguarding the ruler's power to punish and reward, which must be kept in his hands, that punishment and reward can not be meted out without the ruler's approval, or that persons are immune to it.

The thrust of the more administrative Shu is not the establishment of fa as codified law, as more under Shang Yang's wing of Han Fei's doctrine. Rather, relying on fa (objective standards), the ruler ought not at least mete out reward or punishment on mere recommendations or fame. A monopoly over reward and punishment does not itself make Shen Buhai or his ruler a Shang Yangian Legalist, even if Han Fei advocates it.

That being said, recalled by Tao Jiang, as Creel says, Shu is regardless not itself found in the Shen Buhai fragments. Only shu 數 numbers appears in the fragments, which Creel took as evolving towards Shu. As would not be unique, Edward L Shaughnessy glosses Shen Buhai under Han Fei's shu. He does not interpret him along Han Fei lines, but others have simply glossed Shen Buhai along Han Fei lines, with the tactics and trickery of the Han Feizi's later chapters, and even the harsh laws of Shang Yang.

The Huainanzi says that when Shen Buhai lived, the officials of the state of Han were at cross-purposes and did not know what practices to follow. However, Shaughnessy points out that Shen Buhai would have at least been aware Li Kui's book of law, as Shang Yang's predecessor. Taking Li Kui as a potential influence, Shaughnessy suggests Shen Buhai as at least similar in the sense of attempting to implement a more meritocratic government.

Tao Jiang notes Korean scholar Soon-Ja Yang as still relying on Creel's fragments, taking the "absence of Shu much more seriously." Opposing Han Fei in favour of developing a more Confucian-Legalist interpretation, she interpolates a universal registry along the lines of the Confucian rectification of names. Not specifically endorsing the interpretation, Tao Jiang takes her as illustrative of Creel, namely that Shen Buhai does not follow Han Fei's broader doctrine, but rather as aiming at a cooperative, impartial government along Creel lines.[12]

Philosophy

Though not unifying the laws as Shang Yang did, what Shen appears to have realized is that the "methods for the control of a bureaucracy" could not be mixed with the survivals of feudal government, or staffed merely by "getting together a group of 'good men'", but rather must be men qualified in their jobs. Unlike Shang Yang, Shen therefore emphasizes the importance of selecting able officials as much as Confucius did, but insists on "constant vigilance over their performance", never mentioning virtue. In comparison with Han Fei, his system required a strong ruler, emphasizing that he trust no one minister.

Ideally, Shen Buhai's ruler had the widest possible sovereignty, was intelligent (if not a sage), had to make all crucial decisions himself, and had unlimited control of the bureaucracy - over which, in contrast to Shang Yang, he is simply the head. Championing Fa (法 "method"), Shen believed that the greatest threat to a ruler's power came from within, and unlike Han Fei, never preaches to his ministers about duty or loyalty. He insisted that the ruler must be fully informed on the state of his realm, but couldn't afford to get caught up in details and was advised to listen to no one – and does not, as Sinologist Herrlee G. Creel says, have the time to do so. The way to see and hear independently is by grouping particulars into categories through mechanical or operational decision-making (Fa or "method").[13]

Shen Buhai's doctrines, posthumously referred to by Han Fei as Shu or Techniques (a term Shen does not appear to have used), are described as concerned almost exclusively with the "ruler's role and the methods by which he may control a bureaucracy", that is, its management and personnel control: the selection of capable ministers, their performance, the monopolization of power, and the control of and relations between ruler and minister which he characterized as Wu Wei. They can therefore easily be considered the most crucial element in controlling a bureaucracy.[14][15][16]

More specifically, Shen Buhai's methods (Fa) focused on "scrutinizing achievement and on that ground alone to give rewards, and to bestow office solely on the basis of ability".[17] Liu Xiang wrote that Shen Buhai advised the ruler of men use technique (shu) rather than punishment, relying on persuasion to supervise and hold responsible, though very strictly.[18] Liu considered Shen's "principal tenet" to be (Xing-Ming 刑名).[19] Representing equally applied checks against the power of officials, Xing-Ming seeks the right person for the job through the examination of skill, achievement and (more rarely) seniority.

Personnel selection

Shen Buhai's personnel control, or rectification of names (or crudely, "office titles") worked through "strict performance control", correlating performance and posts (Xing or Shih and Ming).[15] It would become a central tenet of both "Legalist" statecraft[20] and its Taoistic derivatives. Creel believed that the correlation between Wu-wei and Xing-ming may have informed the Taoist conception of the formless Tao that "gives rise to the ten thousand things."[21]

In the Han Dynasty secretaries of government who had charge of the records of decisions in criminal matters were called Xing-Ming, a term used by Han Fei, which Sima Qian (145 or 135 – 86 BC) and Liu Xiang (77 BC – 6 BC) attributed to the doctrine of Shen Buhai(400 BC – c. 337 BC).[22][23] Liu Xiang goes as far as to define Shen Buhai's doctrine as Xing-Ming.[24] Shen actually used an older, more philosophically common equivalent, ming-shih, linking the "Legalist doctrine of names" with the name and reality (ming shih) debates of the school of names.[25] Such discussions are also prominent in the Han Feizi.[26]

Sima Qian and Liu Xiang define Xing-Ming as "holding actual outcome accountable to Ming".[27][28] Ming 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 shih "reality").[29] Rather than having to look for "good" men, Xing-Ming (or ming-shih) can seek the right man for a particular post, though doing so implies a total organizational knowledge of the regime.[30] More simply though, it can allow ministers to come forward with proposals of specific cost and time frame, leaving their definition to competing ministers—the doctrine favored by Han Fei. Preferring exactness, it combats the tendency to promise too much;[31] the correct articulation of Ming is considered crucial to the realization of projects.[20]

The logician Deng Xi (died 501 BCE) is cited by Liu Xiang for the origin of the principle of Xing-Ming. Serving as a minor official in the state of Zheng, he is reported to have drawn up a code of penal laws. Associated with litigation, he is said to have argued for the permissibility of contradictory propositions, likely engaging in hair-splitting debates on the interpretation of laws, legal principles and definitions.[32]

Shen Buhai solves this through Wu wei, or not getting involved, making an official's words his own responsibility.[22] Shen Buhai says, "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."[33] Noting all the details of a claim and then attempting to objectively compare them with his achievements through passive mindfulness (the "method of yin"), Shen Buhai's ruler neither adds to nor detracts from anything, giving names (titles/offices) on the basis of claim.[22]

Shen supported reward for visible results,[34] using ming-shih for investigation and appointment, but the legal system of Han was apparently confused, prohibiting uniform reward and punishment. We have no basis to suppose that Shen advocated the doctrine of rewards and punishment (of Shang Yang, as Han Fei did), and Han Fei criticizes him for not unifying the laws.[35]

Wu wei

Zhaoming Mirror frame, Western Han dynasty

Earlier modern scholars suggested that Shen's statecraft blended with Daoism. Since the bulk of the Tao Te Ching appears to have been composed later, Creel argued that it might therefore be assumed that Shen influenced instead the Tao Te Ching. 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.[36]

Following Shen, Han Fei strongly advocated Wu wei. During the Han dynasty up until the reign of Han Wudi, rulers confined their activity "chiefly to the appointment and dismissal of his high officials", a plainly "Legalist" practice inherited from the Qin dynasty.[37] This "conception of the ruler's role as a supreme arbiter, who keeps the essential power firmly in his grasp" while leaving details to ministers, has a "deep influence on the theory and practice of Chinese monarchy."

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.[38] Unlike "Legalists" Shang Yang and Han Fei, Shen did not consider the relationship between ruler and minister antagonistic necessarily.[39] Apparently paraphrasing the Analects, Shen Buhai's statement that those near him will feel affection, while the far will yearn for him,[40] stands in contrast to Han Fei, who considered the relationship between the ruler and ministers irreconcilable.[41]

However, Shen still believed that the ruler's most able ministers are his greatest danger,[42] and is convinced that it is impossible to make them loyal without techniques.[43] 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."[44]

Emphasizing the use of administrative methods (Fa) in secrecy, Shen Buhai portrays the ruler as putting up a front to hide his weaknesses and dependence on his advisers.[45] Shen therefore 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. Shen says:[46]

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.'[47]

Acting through administrative method (Fa), the ruler conceals his intentions, likes and dislikes, skills and opinions. Not acting himself, he can avoid being manipulated.[48] The 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. Creel 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.[49] Seeing and hearing independently, the ruler is able to make decisions independently, and is, Shen says, able to rule the world thereby.[50]

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 the world itself is complete.

— Shen Buhai[51]

This Wu wei (or nonaction) might be said to end up the political theory of the "Legalists", if not becoming their general term for political strategy, playing a "crucial role in the promotion of the autocratic tradition of the Chinese polity." The (qualified) non-action of the ruler ensures his power and the stability of the polity.[52]

Yin (passive mindfulness)

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

A commentary to the Shiji cites a now-lost book as quoting 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." Yin aimed at concealing the ruler's intentions, likes and opinions. Despite such injunctions, it is clear that the ruler's assignments would still be completely up to him.[53]

Legacy

Considering Creel correct to distinguish between the stands of 'Legalism', Michael Loewe, in the Cambridge History of China, argued for their complementarity. Han Fei called both branches "the instruments of Kings and Emperors", and Li Si praises them equally, finding no contradiction between them. Nonetheless, Loewe credits Shen Buhai with a Qin government as more sophisticated than if it had been based on the dogma of the Book of Lord Shang alone. Questioning the thrust of tracing lineages between the personas as a historical method, Loewe characterizes its personas as sympathizers of imperial government over that of the small states, endeavoring to permanently establish imperial government without the dangers that destroyed the Qin.[54]

Creel elaborates a number of figures influenced potentially by Shen Buhai. These include 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, and Emperor Wen of Sui. Although a Confucian-oriented minister, Zhuge Liang is noted (by others) as attaching great importance to the work of Han Fei and Shen Buhai. Emperor Qinshihuang erected an inscription naming himself as taking control of the government and for the first time establishing Xing-Ming, as retroactive terminology for Shen Buhai's method.

The Shiji records Li Si as repeatedly recommending "supervising and holding responsible", which he attributed to Shen Buhai. A stele set up by Qin Shi Huang memorializes him as a sage that, taking charge of the government, established Xing-Ming. The Shiji states that Emperor Wen of Han was "basically fond of Xing-Ming."

The scholar Jia Yi advised Wen to teach his heir to use Shen Buhai's method, so as to be able to "supervise the functions of the many officials and understand the usages of government." 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." Two advisors to Wen's heir, Emperor Jing of Han were students of Xing-Ming, one passing the highest grade of examination, and admonished Jing for not using it on the feudal lords.

By the time of the civil service examination was put into place, Confucian influence saw outright discussion of Shen Buhai banned. However, the Emperor under which it was founded, Emperor Wu of Han, was both familiar with and favorable to Legalist ideas, and the civil service examination did not come into existence until its support by Gongsun Hong, who wrote a book on Xing-Ming. 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.

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 uses Ming-shih in a manner "hardly distinguishable" from the Han Feizi, 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 xingming. 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. Regarded as being in opposition to Confucians, as Confucianism ascended the term disappeared. As early as the Eastern Han its full and original meaning would be forgotten. Yet, it appears in later dynasties, and 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."[55]

References

Footnotes
  1. ↑ Knechtges (2014), p. 874.
  2. ↑ Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies XII, An Outline of the Former Han Dynasty
    • Bishop, Donald H. (September 27, 1995). Chinese Thought: An Introduction.
    • Motilal Banarsidass Publ. p90 ISBN 9788120811393
    • S.Y. Hsieh, 1995. p.90 Chinese Thought: An Introduction.
  3. ↑ Graham, A. C. 1989/2015. p283. Disputers of the Tao.
    • Creel, 1974. p4–5. Shen Pu-hai: A Chinese Political Philosopher of the Fourth Century B.C.
  4. ↑ Creel, Herrlee Glessner (September 15, 1982). What Is Taoism?: And Other Studies in Chinese Cultural History. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 9780226120478 – via Google Books.
  5. ↑
  6. ↑ Creel, Herrlee Glessner. 1974 p.21-23 Shen Pu-hai: A Chinese Political Philosopher of the Fourth Century B.C.
    • Tao Jiang p232.
  7. ↑ Creel, Herrlee Glessner (1982-09-15). What Is Taoism?: And Other Studies in Chinese Cultural History. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-12047-8.
  8. ↑
  9. ↑ Legalism
    • Joseph Needham 1956.206. Science and Civilization in China Volume 2
    • Creel, Herrlee Glessner.1970. p92 What Is Taoism?
    https://books.google.com/books?id=5p6EBnx4_W0C&pg=PA92
  10. ↑ Kenneth Winston 2005
    • Peerenboom 1993 Law and Morality in Ancient China
  11. ↑ Creel's branches part 1
  12. ↑
  13. ↑ Creel 1970 p.63,65,81,86. What Is Taoism? https://books.google.com/books?id=5p6EBnx4_W0C&pg=PA86
  14. ↑ Creel 1970, What Is Taoism?, 81, 100,103
  15. 1 2 Hansen, Chad (2000-08-17). A Daoist Theory of Chinese Thought: A Philosophical Interpretation. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-535076-0.
  16. ↑ Xuezhi Guo 2001, p.142, The Ideal Chinese Political Leader
  17. ↑ Creel 1970. p.93. What Is Taoism?
    • Creel, 1974 p.33 Shen Pu-hai: A Chinese Political Philosopher of the Fourth Century B.C.
  18. ↑ Makeham, John (1990). "THE LEGALIST CONCEPT OF HSING-MING: An Example of the Contribution of Archaeological Evidence to the Re-Interpretation of Transmitted Texts". Monumenta Serica. 39: 87–114. ISSN 0254-9948.
    • Herrlee G. Creel, 1974. p.66 Shen-Pu Hai, A Chinese Political Philosopher of the Century B.C.
    • Makeham, J. (1990) p. 92, 98. The Legalist Concept of Hsing-Ming: An Example of the Contribution of Archaeological Evidence to the Re-Interpretation of Transmitted Texts. Monumenta Serica, 39, 87-114. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/40726902
  19. ↑ Creel, Herrlee Glessner (1982-09-15). What Is Taoism?: And Other Studies in Chinese Cultural History. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-12047-8.
  20. 1 2 Makeham, John (1994-07-22). Name and Actuality in Early Chinese Thought. SUNY Press. ISBN 978-0-7914-1984-7.
  21. ↑ Ching, Julia; Guisso, R. W. L. (1991). Sages and Filial Sons: Mythology and Archaeology in Ancient China. Chinese University Press. ISBN 978-962-201-469-5.
  22. 1 2 3 Makeham, John (1990). "THE LEGALIST CONCEPT OF HSING-MING: An Example of the Contribution of Archaeological Evidence to the Re-Interpretation of Transmitted Texts". Monumenta Serica. 39: 87–114. ISSN 0254-9948.
  23. ↑ Creel, Herrlee Glessner (1982-09-15). What Is Taoism?: And Other Studies in Chinese Cultural History. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-12047-8.
    • Creel, 1959 p. 199-200. The Meaning of Hsing-Ming. Studia Serica: Sinological studies dedicated to Bernhard Kalgren
  24. ↑ Creel, Herrlee Glessner (1982-09-15). What Is Taoism?: And Other Studies in Chinese Cultural History. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-12047-8.
  25. ↑ Makeham, J. (1990) p. 87, 89. The Legalist Concept of Hsing-Ming: An Example of the Contribution of Archaeological Evidence to the Re-Interpretation of Transmitted Texts. Monumenta Serica, 39, 87-114. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/40726902
  26. ↑ Csikszentmihalyi, Mark (1997). "Chia I's "Techniques of the Tao" and the Han Confucian Appropriation of Technical Discourse". Asia Major. 10 (1/2): 49–67. ISSN 0004-4482.
  27. ↑ Pines, Yuri (2014), Zalta, Edward N.; Nodelman, Uri (eds.), "Legalism in Chinese Philosophy", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2014 ed.), Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, retrieved 2023-08-23
  28. ↑ Creel 1970, p.87,104. What Is Taoism? https://books.google.com/books?id=5p6EBnx4_W0C&pg=PA87
    • Makeham, J. (1990) p. 91. The Legalist Concept of Hsing-Ming: An Example of the Contribution of Archaeological Evidence to the Re-Interpretation of Transmitted Texts. Monumenta Serica, 39, 87-114. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/40726902
  29. ↑ Creel, Herrlee Glessner (1982-09-15). What Is Taoism?: And Other Studies in Chinese Cultural History. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-12047-8.
    • Creel, 1959 p. 203. The Meaning of Hsing-Ming. Studia Serica: Sinological studies dedicated to Bernhard Kalgren
  30. ↑ Creel, 1974 p.57 Shen Pu-hai: A Chinese Political Philosopher of the Fourth Century B.C.
  31. ↑ Paul R. Goldin 2013. p.9. Introduction: Han Fei and the Han Feizi. https://www.sas.upenn.edu/ealc/system/files/bio/%5Buser-raw%5D/papers/Introduction.pdf
  32. ↑ Cua, Antonio S. (2013-11-05). Encyclopedia of Chinese Philosophy. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-135-36748-0.
  33. ↑ Creel 1970 p.65. What Is Taoism? https://books.google.com/books?id=5p6EBnx4_W0C&pg=PA65
  34. ↑ A.C. Graham 1989. p.283. Disputers of the Tao. https://books.google.com/books?id=QBzyCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA283
  35. ↑ Creel, 1974 p.32. Shen Pu-hai: A Chinese Political Philosopher of the Fourth Century B.C.
  36. ↑ Creel 1970 p.62-63. What Is Taoism? https://books.google.com/books?id=5p6EBnx4_W0C&pg=PA62
  37. ↑ Creel 1970 p.99. What Is Taoism? https://books.google.com/books?id=5p6EBnx4_W0C&pg=PA99
  38. ↑ Creel 1970 p.69,99. What Is Taoism? https://books.google.com/books?id=5p6EBnx4_W0C&pg=PA69
    • Creel, 1974 p.66. Shen Pu-hai: A Chinese Political Philosopher of the Fourth Century B.C.
  39. ↑ R. P. Peerenboom 1993 p.241. Law and Morality in Ancient China. https://books.google.com/books?id=ctWt6bvFaNAC&pg=PA241
  40. ↑ Creel 1970 p.67,81. What Is Taoism? https://books.google.com/books?id=5p6EBnx4_W0C&pg=PA67
    • Creel, 1959 p. 201. The Meaning of Hsing-Ming. Studia Serica: Sinological studies dedicated to Bernhard Kalgren
  41. ↑ Pines, Yuri, "Legalism in Chinese Philosophy", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2014 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2014/entries/chinese-legalism/
  42. ↑ Creel, 1974 p.35 Shen Pu-hai: A Chinese Political Philosopher of the Fourth Century B.C.
  43. ↑ Xuezhi Go, 2002. p.143 The Ideal Chinese Political Leader.
  44. ↑ Creel 1970 p.67. What Is Taoism? https://books.google.com/books?id=5p6EBnx4_W0C&pg=PA67
  45. ↑ Karyn Lai 2017. p.171. An Introduction to Chinese Philosophy. https://books.google.com/books?id=3M1WDgAAQBAJ&pg=PA171
  46. ↑ Creel 1970 p.67 What Is Taoism? https://books.google.com/books?id=5p6EBnx4_W0C&pg=PA72
    • Creel, 1974 p.35. Shen Pu-hai: A Chinese Political Philosopher of the Fourth Century B.C*
  47. ↑ Creel 1970 p.66. What Is Taoism? https://books.google.com/books?id=5p6EBnx4_W0C&pg=PA66
  48. ↑ S.Y. Hsieh, 1995. p.92 Chinese Thought: An Introduction https://books.google.com/books?id=-E5LZeR7QKwC&pg=PA92
  49. ↑ Creel 1970, What Is Taoism?, 65-66
    • Xuezhi Go, 2002. p.198 The Ideal Chinese Political Leader
  50. ↑ Creel, 1974 p.26. Shen Pu-hai: A Chinese Political Philosopher of the Fourth Century B.C.
  51. ↑ Creel 1970 p.64 What Is Taoism? https://books.google.com/books?id=5p6EBnx4_W0C&pg=PA64
  52. ↑ Xuezhi Go, 2002. p.198 The Ideal Chinese Political Leader.
  53. ↑ John Makeham 1994 p. 69. Name and Actuality in Early Chinese Thought. https://books.google.com/books?id=GId_ASbEI2YC&pg=PA69
    • Makeham, J. (1990) p39,90-91,87–114 The Legalist Concept of Hsing-Ming: An Example of the Contribution of Archaeological Evidence to the Re-Interpretation of Transmitted Texts. Monumenta Serica, JSTOR 40726902
  54. ↑
  55. ↑ Legacy
Works cited
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.