As stated in Shiji and the Book of Han, the Han Dynasty adopted the government institutions of the Qin Dynasty almost unchanged,[6]:105 but in its early decades it was not a centralized state, distributing land to a number of relatives who ruled with full authority as vassal kings. [6]: 107 The reputation of legalism suffered from its association with the ancient Qin dynasty. While Sima Tan praised the Fa “school” for “honoring leaders and devaluing subjects and clearly distinguishing offices so that no one can override [their responsibilities],” criticized the legalistic approach as “a one-off policy that could not be enforced all the time.” [269] Although philosophically different, pairing of figures such as Shen Buhai and Shang Yang with Han Fei became common in the early Han Dynasty, with Sima Tan glossing over all three as Fa Jia and his son as disciples of “xing ming” (“realization and title”). [6]:90 [270] Gongsun deliberately produced equal conditions between the governed, strict control of the economy, and promoted total loyalty to the state, including censorship and rewards for whistleblowing. The law was what the sovereign ordained, and that meant absolutism, but it was an absolutism of law as impartial and impersonal. Gongsun discouraged arbitrary tyranny or terror as the destruction of the law. [146] He emphasized people`s knowledge of the Fa and proposed an elaborate system for its distribution that allowed them to hold servants in it. [14]: 359 He saw them as the most important means of maintaining state power. He insisted that it be known and applied equally to all, and hung it on pillars erected in the new capital. In 350, with the creation of the new capital, part of Qin was divided into thirty-one counties, each “administered by a magistrate (presumably appointed centrally)”.

This was an “important step towards the centralization of Ch`in administrative power” and consequently reduced the power of hereditary landowners. [13]:83 [147][148] In 1572, Zhang Juzheng, a legalistic figure of the Ming dynasty, similar to a prime minister, asked the young emperor of the time to issue a warning dictation against the Chinese bureaucracy, stating that they had renounced the public interest for their own private interests. He says, “From now on you will be pure in your hearts and conscientious in your work. You will have no private intentions and will deceive your sovereign. They will not complicate debates or destabilize the government. He suggests that good government will prevail as long as the principal ministers have been determined in the administration of the empire and minor officials have been selflessly devoted to the common good. It is said that after release, public servants became “very cautious and cautious.” His book “On Equalizing Taxes and Helping the People” postulates that local officials` partisanship toward powerful local interests was responsible for tax collection abuses that harmed both ordinary people and the Ming state. [307] The waning appeal of legalism became fully visible during the reign of Emperor Wu the Han (r.

141-87 BC). Although the emperor himself pursued an assertive domestic and foreign policy largely modeled on the Qin dynasty, he considered it wise to distance himself from Qin and legalism and, although superficially, to support Confucianism. During his reign, initial proposals were made to ban followers of Shang Yang, Shen Buhai and Han Fei from holding positions. Although these proposals had limited short-term consequences (Shang Yang`s legacy was still openly defended by the government representative during court debates in 81 BC), attitudes towards legalists changed in the long run. Few scholars have studied their writings; Even fewer had the courage to openly endorse their legacy. Like Qin himself (see Pines 2014a), legalism has now become a negative label associated with policies that the majority of imperial scholars opposed immensely: excessive harshness, oppression, court terror, imperial pride, etc. Self-identification as a disciple of Shang Yang or Han Fei has become a rarity, if not an impossibility. The last sentence presents the reasons for the construction model of Shang Yang State. If a radical restructuring of society was legitimate in the past, it is also legitimate in the present. In the current situation where people “know”, a powerful state capable of forcing its subjects is the only viable solution. Lord Shang`s book (but not Han Feizi) has raised the possibility that in the future the need for excessive coercion will end and a softer, morally motivated political structure will develop, but these utopian digressions are of secondary importance in the text (Pines 2013a).

What matters is the bottom line: radical reforms were inevitable in the past; And they are inevitable in the present. These states fought against each other again and again, but none of them could gain the advantage over the others until King Ying Zheng adopted Qin Han Feizi`s philosophy of legalism and Shang Yang`s concept of total war and conducted national and military campaigns in this direction to achieve victory. The ancient rules of chivalry that Chinese armies had always considered were ignored by the Qin as they destroyed one state after another. When the last of the free states was conquered, Ying Zheng declared himself the first emperor of China: Shi Huangdi. Shen Dao presents his political credo with rare clarity. A leader is crucial to the proper functioning of the political system; It is the very foundation of the political order, not a beneficiary but a servant of humanity. Significantly, the ruler obtains these blessed results by the mere fact of his existence and not by his morality or intelligence. As Shen Dao makes clear, bad laws are better than a lawless situation, and we can conclude that a bad leader is better than anarchy. What counts, as Shen Dao explains elsewhere, are not the individual qualities of the leader, but his ability to maintain his “positional power” (or “power of authority”, shi勢). As long as the sovereign keeps his power intact, that is, by not delegating them to ministers and keeping the singularity of decision-making in his hands, the political system will work well.

Otherwise, turbulence is inevitable. Shen Dao warns: Guan Zhong and later Mozi (470-391 BC) recommended objective, reliable, easy-to-use standards,[94][14]:348-349[95] publicly available standards or models that resist what sinologist Chad Hansen calls “the cultivated intuition of self-admiring societies,” experts in singing ancient texts. [14]: 348–349 [77] For Guan Zhong, Fa could complement any traditional scheme, and he uses Fa alongside the Confucian Li (the unique principles or norms of things that determine and distinguish them) that he always cherished. What the Fa has made possible is to follow the instructions to the letter. [14]: 348-349 [93] With minimal training, anyone can use the Fa to perform a task or verify results. [94] In principle, looking at their roots in Guan Zhong and Mozi, one could say that legalists all use the Fa in the same (administrative) way. [77] [96] The first to use the term fa jia was Sima Qian`s father, Sima Tan 司馬談 (died 110 BC). In an essay on the “nature of the six schools of thought,” Sima Tan notes that fa jia “are strict and have little kindness” and “make no distinction between relatives and strangers, or between nobles and viles: everything is determined by norm (or law, fa).” Sima Tan criticized the legalists` approach as “a one-off policy that could not be applied constantly,” but also praised the Jia Fa for “honoring leaders and devaluing subjects and clearly distinguishing functions so that no one can override [their responsibilities]” (Shiji 130:3289-3291; for translations, see.