Skip to main content
Log in

The Book of Lord Shang Compared with Machiavelli and Hobbes

  • Published:
Dao Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This essay argues that political realism is an effective heuristic for understanding The Book of Lord Shang (Shangjun Shu 商君書), which it compares to the political thought of Machiavelli and Hobbes. It first lays out the premises of political realism as they emerge from this comparison: the real is the guiding heuristic of political realism; historical change is the fundamental condition; the nature of human beings is selfish but can also form customs favorable to political order. Based on these premises, the essay then discusses the major propositions of political realism: the purpose of central authority is to provide the multitude with the benefits of order and to reward the ruler; the benefits of order warrant the commission of cruel deeds, also called the reason of state in the West; legal and extra-legal actions are the means by which the central authority imposes order and counters contingency; punishment is the primary means to make the laws prevail. The essay closes with considering the question of whether a fully implemented realist order could put an end to historical change.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ames, Roger T. 1994. The Art of Rulership: A Study of Ancient Chinese Political Thought. Albany: State of New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Analects. 1979. In Confucius: The Analects. Trans. by D.C. Lau. London: Penguin Books

  • The Book of Lord Shang: A Classic of the Chinese School of Law. Trans. by J.J.L. Duyvendak. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  • Cheng, Chung-Ying. 1981. “Legalism versus Confucianism: A Philosophical Appraisal.” Journal of Chinese Philosophy 8.3: 271-302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2011. “Preface: Understanding Legalism in Chinese Philosophy.” Journal of Chinese Philosophy 38.1: 1-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Creel, Herrlee. 1961. “The Fa-chia—Legalists or Administrators?” In Studies to Tung Tso Pin on His Sixty-Fifth Birthday. The Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology. Academia Sinica 4: 607-36.

  • Duyvendak, J.J.L. 1963. “Introduction.” In The Book of Lord Shang: A Classic of the Chinese School of Law. Trans. by J.J.L. Duyvendak. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  • Fu, Zhengyuan. 1996. China’s Legalists: The Earliest Totalitarians and Their Art of Ruling. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fung, Yu-lan. 1952. “Han Fei Tzu and the Other Legalists.” In A History of Chinese Philosophy, Vol. I: The Period of the Philosophers (from the Beginnings to Circa 100 B.C.), 312-336. 2nd ed. Trans. by Derk Bodde. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

  • Goldin, Paul R. 2011. “Persistent Misconceptions about Chinese ‘Legalism.’” Journal of Chinese Philosophy 38.1: 88-104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, A.C. 1989. Disputers of the Tao: Philosophical Argument in Ancient China. La Salle, IL: Open Court.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanfeizi. 1939/59. In The Complete Works of H an Fei Tzu: A Classic of Chinese Legalism. Trans. by W.K. Liao. 2 vols. London: Probsthain.

  • Hobbes, Thomas. 1994. Leviathan. Edited by Edwin Curley. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hsiao, Kung-chuan. 1979. A History of Chinese Political Thought, vol. I: From the Beginnings to the Sixth Century A.D. Trans. by F.W. Mote. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

  • Hsieh, S.Y. 1985. “The Legalist Philosophers.” In Chinese Thought: An Introduction. Edited by Donald H. Bishop. Columbia, MO: South Asia Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hulsewé, A.F.P. 1985. Remnants of Ch’in Law: An Annotated Translation of the Ch’in Legal and Administrative Rules of the 3 rd Century B.C. Discovered in Yün-meng Prefecture, Hu-pei Province, in 1975. Leiden: E.J. Brill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kraynak, Robert P. 1990. History and Modernity in the Thought of Thomas Hobbes. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kroker, Eduard Josef. 1951. Der Gedanke der Macht im Shang-kün-shu: Betrachtungen eines alten chinesischen Philosophen.Wien-Mödling: St.-Gabriel-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, Gong-Way. 1996. “A Comparative Study Between Shang Yang and Niccolo Machiavelli: Their Views on Human Nature and History.” Chinese Culture 37.1: 39-54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lévi, Jean. 1981. “Introduction.” In Le Livre du Prince Shang. Trans. by Jean Lévi. Paris: Flammarion.

  • Lewis, Mark Edward. 2003. “Custom and Human Nature in Early China.” Philosophy East & West 53.3: 308-22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Machiavelli, Niccolò. 1988. Florentine Histories. Trans. by Laura F. Banfield and Harvey C. Mansfield, Jr. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

  • ———. 1992a. “Dell’ Ambizione.” In Niccolò Machiavelli: Tutte le Opere, 983–87. Edited by Mario Martelli. Florence: Sansoni.

  • ———. 1992b. “L’Asino.” In Niccolò Machiavelli: Tutte le Opere, 954–76. Edited by Mario Martelli. Florence: Sansoni.

  • ———. 1992c. “Di Fortuna.” In Niccolò Machiavelli: Tutte le Opere, 976–79. Edited by Mario Martelli. Florence: Sansoni.

  • ———. 1996. Discourses on Livy. Trans. by Harvey C. Mansfield and Nathan Tarcov. Chicago: University of Chicago Press

  • ———. 1998. The Prince. 2nd ed. Trans. by Harvey C. Mansfield. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  • Martinich, A.P. 2011. “The Sovereign in the Political Thought of Hanfeizi and Thomas Hobbes.” Journal of Chinese Philosophy 38.1: 64-72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moody, Peter R., Jr. 1979. “The Legalism of Han Fei-tzu and Its Affinities with Modern Political Thought.” International Philosophical Quarterly 19.3: 317-31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parel, Anthony J. 1992. The Machiavellian Cosmos. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pines, Yuri. 2009. Envisioning Eternal Empire: Chinese Political Thought of the Warring States Era. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pines, Yuri, and Gideon Shelach. 2005. “‘Using the Past to Serve the Present’: Comparative Perspectives on Chinese and Western Theories of the Origin of the State.” In Genesis and Regeneration: Essays on Conceptions of Origins, edited by Shaul Shaked, 127-63. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, Vitaly A. 1976. Individual and State in Ancient China: Essays on Four Chinese Philosophers. Trans. by Steven I. Levine. New York: Columbia University Press.

  • Scharfstein, Ben-Ami. 1995. Amoral Politics: The Persistent Truth of Machiavellism. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, Henrique. 2011. “Legalism: Chinese-Style Constitutionalism?” Journal of Chinese Philosophy 38.1: 46-63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, Benjamin I. 1985. The World of Thought in Ancient China. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vandermeersch, Léon. 1965. La Formation du Légisme: Recherche sur la Constitution d’une Philosophie Politique Caractéristique de la Chine Ancienne. Paris: École Française D’Extrême Orient.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waley, Arthur. 1982. Three Ways of Thought in Ancient China. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walzer, Michael. 1973. “Political Action: The Problem of Dirty Hands.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 2.2: 160-80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xu, Zhen Zhou. 1995. L’Art de la Politique chez les Légistes Chinois. Bordeaux: Economica.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xunzi, 1988-1994. In Xunzi: A Translation and Study of the Complete Works. Trans. by John Knoblock. 3 vols. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Markus Fischer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Fischer, M. The Book of Lord Shang Compared with Machiavelli and Hobbes. Dao 11, 201–221 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11712-012-9269-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11712-012-9269-y

Keywords

Navigation