Abstract
The present chapter explores the philosophy of language in texts associated with the fǎ tradition – and in particular in Hán Fēizǐ and Shāngjūnshū – with focus on its semantic field, dispelling claims about the alleged lack of concern with linguistic issues of this trend of thought. The chapter addresses the topic from a twofold perspective. It first approaches the philosophical meta-discourse on language that promotes the necessary adherence of uttered claims to reliable standards of reference, and their corresponding actualization as assessable performance (xíngmíng), a performative principle which proves to be fundamental in personnel recruitment and government practice. It then problematizes the intrinsic linguistic and moral ambiguity entailed in the pragmatic use of language, epitomized in particular in the notorious practice of the rhetorical technique of “argumentation” in debate (biàn), which is at the center of the debate in these texts. Relying on selected pertinent textual examples, the chapter further disambiguates the multifaceted, polysemic complexity of the relevant terminology through the systematic analysis of keywords that are central to fǎ philosophy of language.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
“Names” is a neutral overgeneralization used here for the sake of simplicity. For a preliminary discussion of the polysemy of míng see p. 5 below (cf. Pines 2020: 170–71); for a thorough analysis of its different connotations in the fǎ context, see pp. 417–420.
- 2.
On the strategy of “adaptation” and “adaptive agency” in early Chinese philosophy, see Valmisa 2021.
- 3.
The accomplishment of a task carried out to completion and the results thereof, to be considered altogether as the actual performance to be evaluated by the sovereign.
- 4.
- 5.
- 6.
- 7.
Translations are mine unless otherwise stated.
- 8.
- 9.
On the rectification of names as central in Hán Fēi’s thought, see Martinich 2014, esp. 381–384 (despite some disputable claims, such as that Hán Fēi would not be especially interested in language [383], or that he would be confusing “meaning and criteria” [see paragraph 4 “The Confusion of Meaning and Criteria,” 384–88]).
- 10.
All translations from Hán Fēizǐ refer to the division of the text into paragraphs adopted in Harbsmeier Forthcoming (based on Zhāng 2010) and pages from Chén’s 2000 edition. All translations are mine unless indicated otherwise. Cf. translations in Liao 1939: 53, Harbsmeier, Forthcoming; Geaney 2018: 191.
- 11.
Also, as “people’s registration” in official registries, but this meaning does not concern the present discussion.
- 12.
- 13.
Both expressions appear once in two chapters of Guǎnzǐ, 8 “Yòuguān” 幼官 (Dark Palace) and 9 “Yòuguāntú” 幼官圖 (Blueprint of the Dark Palace). Guǎnzǐ 8: 153; 9: 187. On the title of these two chapters, see Rickett 2001: 148–49.
- 14.
The original Chinese text uses 命 mìng (OC *m-riŋ-s), which however is commonly used in place of 名 míng (OC *C.meŋ) from which it seemingly derives, assuming also the meaning of “assigning a name (to a certain thing).”
- 15.
- 16.
Cf. Waring 2020: 139–40.
- 17.
The idea that names and actualization should match (míngshí dāng 名實當) is mentioned in Hán Fēizǐ 48.3 (“Bājīng” 八經) (Chén 2000: 1054), which shows a general concern with the correct use of names.
- 18.
Cf. Roth 2012–13: 161–62.
- 19.
Only a few fragments of Shēnzǐ have been preserved, primarily in political compendia such as Qúnshū zhìyào 群書治要 (Compilation of Writings on the Cardinal Principles of Governance), compiled in 631 by the famous historian Wèi Zhēng 魏徵 (581–643), and Yìlín 意林 (Forest of Ideas) compiled around 786 by Mǎ Zǒng 馬總 (d. 823). The text has undergone several attempts of reconstruction during the Qīng 清 Dynasty (1636/1644–1912); see more in Creel 1974a, b; Louton 1979; Yu Zhong, Chap. 2, this volume.
- 20.
Modified from Goldin 2005: 64.
- 21.
Shǐjì mentions that Shāng Yāng: “When he was young, he was fond of the teaching of xíng1míng” 少好刑名之學 (Shǐjì 68: 2707 [“Shāngjūn lièzhuàn” 史商君列傳]). About Hán Fēi, the text claims that he “was fond of the teachings of xíng1míng, and of methods and techniques, but his own (teaching) is originally rooted in Huáng-Lǎo thought 喜刑名法術之學，而其歸本於黃老 (Shǐjì 63: 2612 [“Lǎozi Hán Fēi lièzhuàn” 老子韓非列傳]).
- 22.
Shǐjì mentions: “Shēnzǐ’s teachings are rooted in Huáng-Lǎo thought, but prioritize xíng1míng. […] Shēnzǐ put considerable effort in applying it to the pursuit of a correspondence between names and actualities” 申子之學本於黃老而主刑名 […] 申子卑卑，施之於名實 (Shǐjì 63: 2611 [“Lǎozi Hán Fēi lièzhuàn”]). A similar assessment of Shēnzǐ is provided by Liú Xiàng 劉向 (77–6 BCE), both in his catalogue, Biélù 別錄 (Separate Records) and in the lost segment of his Xīnxù 新序 (New Prefaces). See Sīmǎ Zhēn’s 司馬貞 (679–732) and Pei Yin’s 裴駰 (420–478) glosses to Shǐjì (63: 2612) and Yán Shīgǔ’s 顏師古 (581–645) gloss in Hànshū 漢書 (History of the [Former] Hàn Dynasty) (Hánshū 9: 278 [“Yuándì jì” 元帝紀]); see also Makeham 1990–91: 91).
- 23.
- 24.
The short study was first published in the Festschrift Studia Serica Bernhard Karlgren Dedicata, edited by Egerod and Glahn (1959), and subsequently reprinted and included in the collection of essays What is Taoism? And Other Studies in Chinese Cultural History (1970: 79–91); see also Creel 1974a: 119–24.
- 25.
This point had been made by D.C. Lau (1921–2010) in his criticism of Creel (Lau 1973: 122–23). Lau underlined that Creel’s argument was based on a far too limited number of occurrences of xíng1míng (namely, two occurrences in Lǐjì 禮記 [Records of the Rites]; one in the “Yáodiǎn” 堯典 [“The Canon of Yao”] chapter of Shūjīng 書經 [Classic of Documents]; and one in Mòzǐ 墨子), and these do not provide sufficient evidence to support Creel’s theory. Makeham also provides a detailed and thorough criticism of Creel’s interpretation of xíng1míng as “performance and title,” starting from and integrating the analysis by D.C. Lau as well as the critical comments expressed by A.C. Graham in that regard (Makeham 1990–91: 94–99; see also 1994: 70–72).
- 26.
See Hán Fēizǐ 5.2 (“Zhǔdào” 主道); 7.2 (“Èr bǐng,” twice); 8.7 (“Yáng quán” 揚權); 37.5.2 (“Nán èr” 難二, twice) (Chén 2000: 74, 126, 163, 882).
- 27.
Cf. Caldwell 2018: 53.
- 28.
Cf. Makeham 1990–91: 96, see esp. 96–98 on this topic.
- 29.
Or, as Makeham says, “outcome cum standard” (Makeham 1990–91: 106). See also pp. 100–01; 104–07. Makeham (1994, appendix D) suggests that 刑 would have been used to express the connotation of 型 as “mould, pattern, model.” I am more inclined to think that the two graphs are co-existing graphic variants that share a common semantic field, and that most probably 刑 already entailed also the connotation of “(abiding by, embodying) standards,” which seems to be also the direction in which his reasoning is going towards the end of his argument: “Of course the semantic niceties of this distinction should not lead one to overlook the essential unity of form and standard, because the realization of a job and the achievement thereby affected are really two sides of the same coin,” (Makeham 1990–91: 107; see also 1994: 75–76).
- 30.
Kai Vogelsang (Forthcoming) has recently pointed out and problematized the issue of the inadequacy of the well established translation of míngzhǔ 明主 as “enlightened” or “clairvoyant” ruler, especially in the context of texts of the fǎ tradition.
- 31.
Caldwell 2018: 84. Caldwell briefly mentions xíng1míng as well (53 and the related footnote n. 26, 88) when discussing how Shāng Yāng is introduced in Shǐjì as a promoter of such theory, see note 21 above. He suggests two hypotheses, that 刑 might indeed be used as a variant of 形, or that in this context it might actually mean “punishments” and refer to the necessary correspondence between punishments and the name of the crime committed. On the basis of the present analysis, I am inclined to think that the former is more likely to be the correct interpretation.
- 32.
Namely, “rewards and punishments” (shǎngfá 賞罰), as the eponymous chapter 7, “Èrbǐng,” discusses in detail. It is interesting to note that the term Hán Fēizǐ uses to indicate “punishments” is fá 罰 (“fines,” “penalties,” “punishments”) and not xíng 刑, which, as already noted, does however appear in the same chapter in the four-character expression “to scrutinize and harmonize achievements and claims” (shěnhé xíngmíng 審合刑名) – precisely with the different meaning of “achievements” with which it has been treated in the present paragraph. In Shāngjūnshū instead we do find a whole chapter entitled “Shǎngxíng” 賞刑 (“Rewards and Punishments”), in which case 刑 unmistakeably means “punishments.” This further reinforces the assumption according to which 刑 in connection with 名 does not typically mean “punishments” in fǎ texts, but is rather related to a discourse on the performative use of language. See pp. 414–420 above; see also Indraccolo 2021b.
- 33.
- 34.
Hán Fēizǐ 5.3 (“Zhǔdào,” twice); 7.2 (“Èrbǐng,” twice); 37.5.2 (“Nán èr”) (Chén 2000: 81, 126, 882).
- 35.
Guǎnzǐ 22: 452 (“Bàxíng” 霸形).
- 36.
- 37.
Shāngjūnshū 3.5 (“Nóngzhàn”) (Zhāng 2012: 47).
- 38.
Hán Fēizǐ 15.1.10 (“Wáng zhēng”) (Chén 2000: 300).
- 39.
- 40.
Hán Fēizǐ 45.5 (“Guǐshǐ” 詭使) (Chén 2000: 991).
- 41.
Shāngjūnshū 3.1 and 3.3 (“Nóngzhàn”) (Zhāng 2012: 39 and 42).
- 42.
Guǎnzǐ 45: 911 (“Rèn fǎ” 任法).
- 43.
- 44.
Hán Fēizǐ 32.2.3 (“Wài chǔshuō zuǒ shàng,” twice) and 48 (“Bā jīng” 八經) (Chén 2000: 674 and 1074).
- 45.
Hán Fēizǐ 46.1 (“Liù fǎn” 六反) (Chén 2000: 1000).
- 46.
Shāngjūnshū 22.1 (“Wàinèi” 外內, twice) (Zhāng 2012: 253–54).
- 47.
The psychology of the addressee plays a fundamental role in persuasion, see Galvany 2012 and Schaberg 2016; on the psychology of the ruler in particular, and especially the potential threat posed by persuaders exploiting his likes and dislikes to their advantage in persuading him, see Graziani 2012 and 2015, and Goldin 2005.
- 48.
- 49.
There are altogether six occurrences of this binomial expression in Shāngjūnshū in the following chapters: Shāngjūnshū 3.4 and 3.5 (“Nóngzhàn,” twice) (Zhāng 2012: 46 and 47), in one of the two however the text is not referring specifically to orators, but simply juxtaposes the two terms in a list of ten nefarious sources of disgrace for a state’s stability and survival; 5.1 (“Shuōmín” 說民, once); 17.4 (“Shǎngxíng”); 25.4 (“Shènfǎ” 慎法); and 26.4 (“Dìngfēn”) (Zhāng 2012: 74, 202, 275, and 283).
- 50.
Hán Fēizǐ 12.7 (“Shuìnán”) (Chén 2000: 269).
- 51.
These two arguments are both mentioned together in Hán Fēizǐ 32.0.2 (“Wài chǔshuō zuǒ shàng”) (Chén 2000: 658) and embedded into short narrative anecdotes used as illustrations, respectively in Hán Fēizǐ 30.0.7 and 30.7.4 (“Nèi chǔshuō shàng” 內儲說上) and 32.2.3 (“Wài chǔshuō zuǒ shàng”) in the case of the “white horse” (Chén 2000: 570, 613, and 674); and 32.0.2 (“Wài chǔshuō zuǒ shàng”) in the case of the “bramble thorn” (Chén 2000: 671–73). See Liao 1939 vol. 2: 35–38. On paradoxes in early Chinese texts, see for instance Reding 1985; Stevenson 1991; Raphals 1998; De Reu 2006; Chen 2014; Indraccolo 2016; and Fraser 2020.
- 52.
- 53.
- 54.
- 55.
It must be noted here that the fǎ tradition does not condemn the private interest or personal profit (sī 私, sīlì 私利) of the individual per se. The problem arises only when and if such private interests or profit clash against and come in the way of the realization of the superior good (i.e. what is beneficial for the state, or the community as a whole, considered as an organized socio-political organism, gōnglì 公利). On the contrary, what other intellectual traditions would define “selfish” desires, according to fǎ thinkers can be smugly exploited to bring the people to willingly collaborate and work towards the goal of the establishment of the envisioned political ideal – a pacified, orderly state ruled by a functioning government that ensures stability and continuity of rule (Harris, Chap. 10, this volume). On the concept of self interest in Hán Fēizǐ, see Goldin 2005: 58–65).
References
Ames, Roger T. 1994. The Art of Rulership: A Study of Ancient Chinese Political Thought. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Berlin, Adele. 1995. The Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Chen, Bo. 2014. Six Groups of Paradoxes in Ancient China from the Perspective of Comparative Philosophy. Asian Philosophy 24 (4): 363–392.
Caldwell, Ernest. 2018. Writing Chinese Laws – The Form and Function of Legal Statutes Found in the Qin Shuihudi Corpus. London/New York: Routledge.
Cáo, Fēng 曹峰. 2008. “A New Discussion of ‘Rectification of Names’ in Xúnzǐ”《荀子 • 正名》篇新論. In Forest of Scholars 儒林, vol. 4, ed. Páng Pǔ 龐樸, 268–82. Jǐnán: Shāndōng Dàxué chūbǎnshè.
——— 曹峰. 2015. “The Theories of Forms and Names’, ‘Rectification of Names’, and ‘Names and Reality’ as a Kind of Political Thought” 作為一種政治思想的‘形名’論、‘正名’論、‘名實’論. Social Science 社會科學 12: 109–120.
——— 曹峰. 2016. “A New Examination of Confucius’ Rectification of Names.” Journal of Chinese Humanities 2: 147–171.
——— 曹峰. 2017. A Study of the Political Thought of ‘Míng’ in Ancient China 國古代“名”的政治思想研究. Shànghǎi. Shànghǎi gǔjí chūbǎnshè.
Chén, Qíyóu 陳奇猷 (1917–2006). 2000. Hán Fēizǐ, With New Collations and Commentary 韓非子新校注. Shànghǎi: Shànghǎi gǔjí chūbǎnshè.
Conde, Juan Luis. 2016a. “La discreta y sorprendente vigencia del ideólogo del despotismo chino: Han Feizi” (The Discreet and Surprisingly Ongoing Influence of Han Feizi, Ideologue of Chinese Despotism). ISEGORÍA. Revista de Filosofia Moral y Politica 54: 51–74.
———. 2016b. Come frecce senza bersaglio: retorica e ideologia in Han Feizi e nel discorso neoliberale. Rivista Italiana di Filosofia del Linguaggio 1–3: 28–42.
Creel, Herrlee G. 1960. Confucius and The Chinese Way. New York: Harper and Row.
———. 1970. What is Taoism? And Other Studies in Chinese Cultural History. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.
———. 1974a. Shen Pu-hai – A Chinese Political Philosopher of the Fourth Century B.C. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.
———. 1974b. Shen Pu-hai: A Secular Philosopher of Administration. Journal of Chinese Philosophy 1 (2): 119–136.
Crump, James I., Jr. 1964. 戰國策 Intrigues: Studies of the Chan-kuo Ts’e. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
De Reu, Wim. 2006. Right Words Seem Wrong: Neglected Paradoxes in Early Chinese Philosophical Texts. Philosophy East and West 56 (2): 281–300.
Defoort, Carine. 2001. Ruling the World with Words: The Idea of Zhengming in the Shizi. Bulletin of the Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities 73: 217–242.
———. 2021. Confucius and the ‘Rectification of Names’: Hu Shi and the Modern Discourse on Zhengming. Dao 20: 613–633.
Dīng, Liàng 丁亮. 2008. “No Names” and “Correct Names” – About the Cultural Use and Development of China’s Early and Middle Ancient Issue of Names Versus Realities “無名” 與 “正名” – 論中國上中古名實問題的文化作用與發展. Táiběi: Huā Mùlán wénhuà chūbǎnshè.
Egerod, Søren, and Else Glahn, eds. 1959. Studia Serica Bernhard Karlgren Dedicata – Sinological Studies Dedicated to Bernhard Karlgren on His Seventieth Birthday, October Fifth, 1959. Copenhagen: Ejnar Munksgaard.
van Els, Paul, Romain Graziani, Yuri Pines and Elisa Sabattini, eds. 2012. Political Rhetoric in Early China/ Rhétorique et politique en Chine ancienne, Special Issue, Extrême-Orient Extrême-Occident 34. Paris: Presses Universitaires de Vincennes.
Fraser, Chris. 2020. Paradoxes in the School of Names. In Dao Companion to Chinese Philosophy of Logic, ed. Fung Yiu-ming, 285–307. Dordrecht: Springer.
Galvany, Albert. 2012. Sly Mouths and Silver Tongues: The Dynamics of Psychological Persuasion in Ancient China. In Political Rhetoric in Early China/ Rhétorique et politique en Chine ancienne, Special Issue, Extrême-Orient Extrême-Occident 34, ed. Paul van Els, Romain Graziani, Yuri Pines, and Elisa Sabattini, 15–40. Paris: Presses Universitaires de Vincennes.
———. 2017. The Court as a Battlefield: The Art of War and the Art of Politics in the Han Feizi. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 80 (1): 73–96.
Garrett, Mary M. 1993. Classical Chinese Conceptions of Argumentation and Persuasion. Argumentation and Advocacy 29 (3): 105–115.
Gassmann, Robert H. 1988. Cheng Ming. Richtigstellung der Bezeichnungen – Zu den Quellen eines Philosophems im antiken China: ein Beitrag zur Konfuzius-Forschung. Schweizerische Asiengesellschaft. Berne/Frankfurt am Main/New York/Paris: Peter Lang.
Geaney, Jane. 2018. Language as Bodily Practice in Early China – A Chinese Grammatology. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Goldin, Paul R. 2005. After Confucius: Studies in Early Chinese Philosophy. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.
———. 2011. Persistent Misconceptions about Chinese ‘Legalism’. Journal of Chinese Philosophy 38 (1): 88–104.
———., ed. 2013. Dao Companion to the Philosophy of Han Fei. Dordrecht: Springer.
———. 2020. The Art of Chinese Philosophy – Eight Classical Texts and How to Read Them. Princeton/Oxford: Princeton University Press.
Graziani, Romain. 2012. Rhetoric that Kills, Rhetoric that Heals. In Political Rhetoric in Early China/ Rhétorique et politique en Chine ancienne, Special Issue, Extrême-Orient Extrême-Occident 34, ed. Paul van Els, Romain Graziani, Yuri Pines, and Elisa Sabattini, 41–78. Paris: Presses Universitaires de Vincennes.
———. 2015. Monarch and Minister: The Problematic Partnership in the Building of Absolute Monarchy in the Han Feizi 韓非子. In Ideology of Power and Power of Ideology in Early China, ed. Yuri Pines, Paul R. Goldin, and Martin Kern, 155–180. Leiden/Boston: E.J. Brill.
Guǎnzǐ jiàozhù 管子校注 (Guǎnzǐ, With Collations and Commentary). 2004. Annotated by Lí Xiángfèng 黎翔鳳 (1901–1979). Běijīng: Zhōnghuá shūjú.
Hànshū 漢書 (History of the [Former] Hàn Dynasty). 1964. By Bān Gù 班固 (32–92). Běijīng: Zhōnghuá shūjú.
Harbsmeier, Christoph. 1998. Language and Logic vol. 7. In Science and Civilization in China, ed. Joseph Needham. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
———, trans. Forthcoming. Han Feizi, A Complete Translation: The Art of Statecraft in Early China. Ed. Jens Østergaard Petersen and Yuri Pines. Leiden/Boston: E.J. Brill.
Hunter, Michael. 2013. The Difficulty with the ‘Difficulties of Persuasion’ (“Shuinan” 說難). In Dao Companion to the Philosophy of Han Fei, ed. Paul R. Goldin, 169–195. Dordrecht: Springer.
Indraccolo, Lisa. 2016. The ‘White Horse,’ the ‘Three-Legged Chicken’ and Other Paradoxes in Classical Chinese Literature. Antiquorum Philosophia 10: 67–88.
———. 2020. Argumentation (bian 辯). In Dao Companion to Chinese Philosophy of Logic, ed. Fung Yiu-ming, 171–180. Dordrecht: Springer.
———. 2021a. Argumentation and Persuasion in Classical Chinese Literature. In Essays on Argumentation in Antiquity, ed. Joseph A. Bjelde, David Merry, and Christopher Roser, 21–48. Dordrecht: Springer.
———. 2021b. Political Rhetoric in the Hán Fēizǐ – A structural analysis of Ch. 12 ‘Shuìnán’ 說難. Asiatische Studien/Études asiatiques 74 (3): 655–686.
Kroll, Jurij L. 1985–86. Disputation in Ancient Chinese Culture. Early China 11–12: 119–145.
Lau, Dim Cheuk. 1973. Herrlee G. Creel, What is Taoism and other Studies in Chinese Cultural History, viii + 192 pp. Chicago and London, The University of Chicago Press, 1970. Asia Major 18: 121–123.
Levi, Jean. 1992. L’art de la persuasion à l’epoque des Royaumes Combattants (Ve–IIIe Siècles a.v. J.C.). Extrême-Orient Extrême-Occident 14: 49–89.
Lewis, Mark Edward. 1999. Writing and Authority in Early China. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Liao, Wen-Kuei, trans. 1939. The Complete Works of Han Fei Tzŭ 韓非子 – a Classic of Chinese Legalism. 2 vols. London: Arthur Probsthain.
Louton, John. 1979. She Pu-hai: A Misunderstood and Wrongly Neglected Thinker? Reviewed Work: Shen Pu-hai: A Chinese Political Philosopher of the Fourth Century B.C. by Herrlee G. Creel. Journal of the American Oriental Society 99 (3): 440–449.
Loy, Hui Chieh. 2003. Analects 13.3 and the Doctrine of ‘Correcting Names’. Monumenta Serica 58: 19–36.
———. 2014. Language and Ethics in the Analects. In Dao Companion to the Analects, ed. Amy Olberding, 137–158. Dordrecht: Springer.
Lu, Xing. 1998. Rhetoric in Ancient China, Fifth to Third Century B.C.E. – A Comparison with Classical Greek Rhetoric. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.
Lúnyǔ zhèngyì 論語正義 (The Correct Interpretation of the Analects). 1990. Annotated by Liú Bǎonán 劉寶楠 (1791–1855). Běijīng: Zhōnghuá shūjú.
MacCormack, Geoffrey. 1986. Rectification of Names in Early Chinese Legal and Political Thought. Archiv für Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie / Archives for Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy 72 (3): 378–390.
Makeham, John. 1990–91. 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.
———. 1994. Name and Actuality in Early Chinese Thought. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Martinich, Aloysius P. 2014. Political Theory and Linguistic Criteria in HAN FEIZI’s Philosophy. Dao 13: 379–393.
Olberding, Garret P., ed. 2013. Facing the Monarch – Modes of Advice in the Early Chinese Court. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Pines, Yuri. 2002. Friends or Foes: Changing Concepts of Ruler-Minister Relations and the Notion of Loyalty in Pre-Imperial China. Monumenta Serica 50: 35–74.
———. 2009. Envisioning Eternal Empire – Chinese Political Thought of the Warring States Era. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.
———. 2016. Social Engineering in Early China: The Ideology of the Shangjunshu (Book of Lord Shang) Revisited. Oriens Extremus 55: 1–37.
———, ed. and trans. 2017a. The Book of Lord Shang: Apologetics of State Power in Early China. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
———. 2017b. Confucius’ Elitism: The Concepts of junzi and xiaoren Revisited. In A Concise Companion to Confucius, ed. Paul R. Goldin, 164–184. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
———. 2020. ‘To Die for the Sanctity of the Name’: Name (ming 名) As Prime Mover of Political Action in Early China. In Keywords in Chinese Culture, ed. Wai-yee Li and Yuri Pines, 169–215. Hong Kong: The Chinese University of Hong Kong Press.
———. 2022. Class Traitors? The Assault on the Intellectuals’ Power in the Book of Lord Shang and Han Feizi. Presented at the workshop “Chinese Political Thought: A Global Dialogue beyond ‘Orientalism.’” January 20th, on-line.
Qúnshū zhìyào 群書治要 (Compilation of Writings on the Cardinal Principles of Governance). 2011. Compiled by Wèi Zhēng 魏徵 (581–643). Táiběi: Shìjìe shūjú.
Raphals, Lisa. 1998. On Hui Shi. In Wandering at Ease in the Zhuangzi, ed. Roger T. Ames, 143–161. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Reding, Jean-Paul. 1985. Les fondements philosophiques de la réthorique chez les sophistes grecs et chez les sophistes chinois. Berne/Frankfurt/New York: Peter Lang.
Richter, Matthias L. 2013. The Embodied Text – Establishing Textual Identity in Early Chinese Manuscripts. Leiden/Boston: E. J. Brill.
Richter, Matthias L. 2014. Handling a double-edged sword: Controlling rhetoric in Early China. In Masters of Disguise? Conceptions and Misconceptions of ‘Rhetoric’ in Chinese Antiquity, Special Issue, Asiatische Studien/Études asiatiques 68: 4, ed. Wolfgang Behr and Lisa Indraccolo, 1021–1068.
Rickett, W. Allyn, ed. and trans. 2001. Guanzi – Political, Economic, and Philosophical Essays from Early China: A Study and Translation. Vol. 1, Chapters I, 1–XI, 34 and XX, 64–XXI, 65–66, Revised Edition. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Roth, Harold D. 2012–13. The Daoist Concept of Li 理 (Pattern) and Early Chinese Comsology. Early China 35–36: 157–183.
Schaberg, David. 2016. The Ruling Mind. Persuasion and the Origins of Chinese Psychology. In The Rhetoric of Hiddenness in Traditional Chinese Culture, ed. Paula M. Varsano, 33–51. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Shǐjì 史記 (Records of the Grand Historian). Compiled by Sīmǎ Qīan 司馬遷 (ca.145–86 BCE). 2014. Běijīng: Zhōnguá shūjú.
Stevenson, Frank W. 1991. South Has (No) Limits: Relative and Absolute Meaning in Hui Shih’s Ten Points. Tamkang Review 21 (4): 325–346.
Sun, Zhenbin. 2015. Language, Discourse, and Practice in Ancient China. Dordrecht: Springer.
Valesio, Paolo. 1980. Novantiqua – Rhetorics as a contemporary theory. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Valmisa, Mercedes. 2021. Adapting – A Chinese Philosophy of Action. New York: Oxford University Press.
Vogelsang, Kai. Forthcoming. Rulership in the Discourse of Political Realism – The Concept of mingzhu 明主. Bochumer Jahrbuch zur Ostasienforschung 46(2023).
Waley, Arthur D., trans. 1938. The Analects of Confucius. London: George Allen and Unwin.
Wang, Hsiao-po, and Leo S. Chang. 1986. The Philosophical Foundations of Han Fei’s Political Theory. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.
Waring, Luke. 2020. Introducing the *Wu Ze You Xing Tu Manuscript from Mawangdui. Early China 43: 123–160.
Watson, Burton, ed. and trans. 1964. Han Fei Tzu – Basic Writings. New York/London: Columbia University Press.
Yáng, Kuān 楊寬. 1998. History of the Warring States 戰國史. Shànghǎi: Shànghǎi Rénmín chūbǎnshè, rev. ed.
Yáng, Xiùgōng 楊秀宮. 1999. A Comparison of Confucius’ and Xúnzǐ’s "Theory of the Rectification of Names" 孔子與荀子「正名論」之比較. Tunghai Journal 東海學報 40.1: 243–278.
——— 楊秀宮. 2002. The Feasability of Developing Xūnzǐ’s Thought on the Rectification of Names into a Philosophy of Language 荀子正名思想朝語言哲學向度發展的可行性. Journal of Shu-Te University 樹德科技大學學報 4.2: 321–335.
Zhāng, Jué 張覺, ed. 2010. Hán Fēizǐ, With Collations and Annotations 韓非子校疏. Shànghǎi: Shànghǎi gǔjí chūbǎnshè.
——— 張覺, ed. 2012. The Book of Lord Shāng, With Collations and Annotations 商君書校疏. Běijīng: Zhīshi chǎnquán chūbǎnshè.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Indraccolo, L. (2024). Chapter 14 Philosophy of Language in the fǎ 法 Tradition. In: Pines, Y. (eds) Dao Companion to China’s fa Tradition. Dao Companions to Chinese Philosophy, vol 19. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-53630-4_15
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-53630-4_15
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-53629-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-53630-4
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)