Dao

, Volume 11, Issue 2, pp 201–221

The Book of Lord Shang Compared with Machiavelli and Hobbes

Article

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.

Keywords

Book of Lord Shang Machiavelli Hobbes Political realism 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ames, Roger T. 1994. The Art of Rulership: A Study of Ancient Chinese Political Thought. Albany: State of New York University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Analects. 1979. In Confucius: The Analects. Trans. by D.C. Lau. London: Penguin BooksGoogle Scholar
  3. The Book of Lord Shang: A Classic of the Chinese School of Law. Trans. by J.J.L. Duyvendak. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  4. Cheng, Chung-Ying. 1981. “Legalism versus Confucianism: A Philosophical Appraisal.” Journal of Chinese Philosophy 8.3: 271-302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. ———. 2011. “Preface: Understanding Legalism in Chinese Philosophy.” Journal of Chinese Philosophy 38.1: 1-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.Google Scholar
  7. 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.Google Scholar
  8. Fu, Zhengyuan. 1996. China’s Legalists: The Earliest Totalitarians and Their Art of Ruling. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
  9. 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.Google Scholar
  10. Goldin, Paul R. 2011. “Persistent Misconceptions about Chinese ‘Legalism.’” Journal of Chinese Philosophy 38.1: 88-104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Graham, A.C. 1989. Disputers of the Tao: Philosophical Argument in Ancient China. La Salle, IL: Open Court.Google Scholar
  12. 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.Google Scholar
  13. Hobbes, Thomas. 1994. Leviathan. Edited by Edwin Curley. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.Google Scholar
  14. 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.Google Scholar
  15. Hsieh, S.Y. 1985. “The Legalist Philosophers.” In Chinese Thought: An Introduction. Edited by Donald H. Bishop. Columbia, MO: South Asia Books.Google Scholar
  16. 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
  17. Kraynak, Robert P. 1990. History and Modernity in the Thought of Thomas Hobbes. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Kroker, Eduard Josef. 1951. Der Gedanke der Macht im Shang-kün-shu: Betrachtungen eines alten chinesischen Philosophen.Wien-Mödling: St.-Gabriel-Verlag.Google Scholar
  19. 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
  20. Lévi, Jean. 1981. “Introduction.” In Le Livre du Prince Shang. Trans. by Jean Lévi. Paris: Flammarion.Google Scholar
  21. Lewis, Mark Edward. 2003. “Custom and Human Nature in Early China.” Philosophy East & West 53.3: 308-22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Machiavelli, Niccolò. 1988. Florentine Histories. Trans. by Laura F. Banfield and Harvey C. Mansfield, Jr. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  23. ———. 1992a. “Dell’ Ambizione.” In Niccolò Machiavelli: Tutte le Opere, 983–87. Edited by Mario Martelli. Florence: Sansoni.Google Scholar
  24. ———. 1992b. “L’Asino.” In Niccolò Machiavelli: Tutte le Opere, 954–76. Edited by Mario Martelli. Florence: Sansoni.Google Scholar
  25. ———. 1992c. “Di Fortuna.” In Niccolò Machiavelli: Tutte le Opere, 976–79. Edited by Mario Martelli. Florence: Sansoni.Google Scholar
  26. ———. 1996. Discourses on Livy. Trans. by Harvey C. Mansfield and Nathan Tarcov. Chicago: University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar
  27. ———. 1998. The Prince. 2nd ed. Trans. by Harvey C. Mansfield. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar
  28. Martinich, A.P. 2011. “The Sovereign in the Political Thought of Hanfeizi and Thomas Hobbes.” Journal of Chinese Philosophy 38.1: 64-72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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
  30. Parel, Anthony J. 1992. The Machiavellian Cosmos. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Pines, Yuri. 2009. Envisioning Eternal Empire: Chinese Political Thought of the Warring States Era. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.Google Scholar
  32. 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
  33. 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.Google Scholar
  34. Scharfstein, Ben-Ami. 1995. Amoral Politics: The Persistent Truth of Machiavellism. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  35. Schneider, Henrique. 2011. “Legalism: Chinese-Style Constitutionalism?” Journal of Chinese Philosophy 38.1: 46-63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schwartz, Benjamin I. 1985. The World of Thought in Ancient China. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  37. 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
  38. Waley, Arthur. 1982. Three Ways of Thought in Ancient China. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Walzer, Michael. 1973. “Political Action: The Problem of Dirty Hands.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 2.2: 160-80.Google Scholar
  40. Xu, Zhen Zhou. 1995. L’Art de la Politique chez les Légistes Chinois. Bordeaux: Economica.Google Scholar
  41. Xunzi, 1988-1994. In Xunzi: A Translation and Study of the Complete Works. Trans. by John Knoblock. 3 vols. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Liberal StudiesCalifornia State University, FullertonFullertonUSA

Personalised recommendations