Product Code Database
Shen Buhai (; ) was a Chinese statesman, reformer and diplomat. According to the Shiji, Shen Buhai served as Chancellor of the Han state under Marquis Zhao of Han, for around fifteen years to his natural death in office in 337 BC, ordering its government and doctrines emphasizing administrative technique (Shu).Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies XII, An Outline of the Former Han Dynasty A contemporary of syncretist Shi Jiao and Shang Yang, Shen was born in the State of Zheng, likely serving as a minor official there. After Han completed the conquest and division of Zheng and Wei in 376 BC, he rose up in the ranks of the Han officialdom, reforming its administration and military defenses only about a half century after its founding.
Shen Buhai influenced the creation of the civil service examination and perhaps was even the first political scientist, seeming to play an influence on Han dynasty reformers. With the imperial examination extending in influence to the European civil service, he may be considered a founder in world bureaucracy.; ; However, it is not as evident that he was as well known as Shen Dao during their lifetimes. His administrative ideas were influential enough to become one of the Xun Kuang's critiqued "Twelve Masters" in the later Warring States period, and might have been renowned by the time the Han Feizi was written.
Shen Buhai was said to be a Daoist in the Shiji, (citing Shiji 63.13) (Daojia is used synonymous with Huang-Lao in the Shiji) with Sima Qian attesting Shen Buhai, Shen Dao and Han Fei to be "rooted" in Huang-Lao, or "Yellow Emperor and Daodejing (Daoism). With concepts of wu wei "non-action", but a Dao or Way referring more to administrative methods, he might have preceded the Tao te Ching, but bears a "striking" resemblance to it. (Creel's opinion); (citing ); (citing Jin 1962) The Han Feizi recalls him alongside the Tao te Ching. Together with the Laozi and Han Feizi, Shen Buhai forms an influence for the Daoistic Huainanzi.
Despite his later influence, according to the Han Feizi, Shen Buhai had disorganized law in the early Han state. No Han or earlier text individually connects him with penal law, but only with control of bureaucracy. The Huainanzi and Hanshu only gloss him as a penal figure (or Chinese Legalism) when discussing him alongside Shang Yang and the Han Feizi. In contrast to Shang Yang, Shen Buhai appears to have opposed punishment, in hopes that a strict and efficient administration would abolish the need for it in the bureaucracy. As quoted by Shiji, Liu Xiang recalls him as a figure who recommended that the ruler "grasp (administrative) technique (shu)" in-order to "do away" with the punishment of ministers, relying on supervision and accountability.
Although Shen Buhai is recorded in Sima Qian's Shiji as becoming Chancellor in Marquis Chao's eight year, traditionally 351 BC, Herrlee Creel and Ch'ien Mu suggested it more probable to date Shen Buhai's appointment as Chancellor, and the Marquis eighth year, earlier, around 354/355 BC, after the state of Wei sieged the state of Chao. The Stratagems of the Warring States state that Shen Buhai had just found favor with the Marquis at the time of that event. Despite the comparatively minor disagreement with Sima Qian, which would make his time as chancellor a little over fifteen years, Shen Buhai's appointment is likely the most accurate dating that can be determined for his life in general.; ;
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. Creel believed that it still existed in 1616. With the assistance of T.H. Tsien Its fragments were re-assembled by Sinologist Herrlee G. Creel, which were still used more recently by Korean scholar Soon-Ja Yang in her review of Shen Buhai.
Shen 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 does not, Creel says, have the time to do so, eschewing personal appointments. The way to see and hear independently is by grouping particulars into categories through mechanical or operational decision-making (Fa or "method").
However, in comparison with the later, more mechanically developed Han Fei, his system still required a strong ruler, emphasizing that he trust no one minister. Shen Buhai's ideal ruler would still have to have had the widest possible sovereignty, be intelligent (if not a sage), have to make all crucial decisions himself, and have 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.
Shen Buhai's doctrines, posthumously referred to by Han Fei as Shu or Technique (a term Shen may not 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.; ;
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."; 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.
Liu considered Shen's "principal tenet" to be ( Xing-Ming 刑名). 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.
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).; Liu Xiang goes as far as to define Shen Buhai's doctrine as Xing-Ming. 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. Such discussions are also prominent in the Han Feizi.
Sima Qian and Liu Xiang define Xing-Ming as "holding actual outcome accountable to Ming."
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").; 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. 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;* the correct articulation of Ming is considered crucial to the realization of projects.
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.
Shen Buhai solves this through Wu wei, or not getting involved, making an official's words his own responsibility. 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." 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.
Shen supported reward for visible results, 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.
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.; Unlike "Chinese Legalism" Shang Yang and Han Fei, Shen did not consider the relationship between ruler and minister antagonistic necessarily. Apparently paraphrasing the Analects, Shen Buhai's statement that those near him will feel affection, while the far will yearn for him,; stands in contrast to Han Fei, who considered the relationship between the ruler and ministers irreconcilable.
However, Shen still believed that the ruler's most able ministers are his greatest danger, and is convinced that it is impossible to make them loyal without techniques. 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."
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. 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:;
Acting through administrative method (Fa), the ruler conceals his intentions, likes and dislikes, skills and opinions. Not acting himself, he can avoid being manipulated. 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.; Seeing and hearing independently, the ruler is able to make decisions independently, and is, Shen says, able to rule the world thereby.
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.
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." Adherence to the use of technique in governing requires the ruler not engage in any interference or subjective consideration.
Although Shu technique appears in the Shen Buhai fragments, Creel would argue that it had not evolved in yet Shen Buhai's time, considering their fragments as representing a later interpolation. Its question is a point of contention for the nature of Shen Buhai.Thomas A. Metzger 1976 p18. Ultimate Wisdom or Applied Psychology? 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. But, they would not appear to present any academic argument available in the English language.
As compared with Shang Yang, the thrust of the more administrative Shu is not the establishment of fa as codified law. Rather, relying on fa (objective standards), the ruler ought at least not mete out reward or punishment on mere recommendation 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. Hence, Creel would argue that Han Fei does not himself consider Shen Buhai a Shang Yangian Legalist (although the concept of Legalist did not exist yet.)
Whether it was itself relying on the Han Feizi's account or not, 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. Shaughnessy points out that Shen Buhai would have at least been aware of Li Kui's book of law, as Shang Yang's predecessor. Taking Li Kui as a hypothetical influence, Shaughnessy only suggests Shen Buhai as 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's comparison of him with Shang Yang, in favour of 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 (significantly later) broader doctrine, but rather as aiming at a cooperative, impartial government along Creel lines. ; ; ;
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."
|
|
