Abstract
This chapter considers the place of “The Difficulties of Persuasion” (“Shuinan” 說難) both within the Han Feizi corpus and in early Chinese intellectual history generally. In contrast to those who have read it as evidence of the amorality or even the immorality of the Han Feizi author(s), I argue that the “Difficulties of Persuasion” should be read as Sima Qian 司馬遷 read the text in the early Western Han, i.e. as advice by a righteous persuader for righteous persuaders. In addition to considering the place of “persuasion” (shui 說) in the Han Feizi corpus, I also compare the text’s advice to persuaders with other writings on persuasion known from early China and ancient Greece.
Keywords
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
One exception is Leo S. Chang’s entry on Han Fei in the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy (s.v.), which mentions “Shuo nan” (i.e. “Shui nan”) in the first sentence.
- 3.
In addition to the mentions in the Records of the Historian and Yang Xiong’s Fayan 法言 (Model Sayings) discussed below, see Ban Gu’s Da ke xi 答客戲 (Response to a Guest’s Jest, Ban Gu 1962: 100a.4227). The other most frequently mentioned Han Feizi chapter is “Solitary Indignation,” which I discuss below.
- 4.
See Ban Gu (1962: 30.1701) for a description of Liu Xiang’s project.
- 5.
For a translation of Records of the Historian 63, see Nienhauser (1994).
- 6.
By “bureaucratic text” I mean texts produced by or for the state, specifically edicts and memorials. Aside from Jia Yi’s (c. 201–169 BCE) 賈誼 “Guo Qin lun” 過秦論 (“Assessing Qin’s Faults”) and Sima Tan’s 司馬談 “Liujia zhi yao zhi” 六家之要指 (“Essentials of the Six Schools of Thought”), the other non-bureaucratic texts to be quoted in full are all fu 賦 (performance texts) from the biographies of Jia Yi and Qu Yuan 屈原 (Records of the Historian 84) and Sima Xiangru 司馬相如 (Records of the Historian 117). However, see Kern (2003a) for doubts about the authenticity of Records of the Historian 117, and to a lesser extent Records of the Historian 84.
- 7.
I.e., the first 12 chapters of the received Lüshi chunqiu.
- 8.
Although often critical of Han Fei, Wang Chong 王充 (27–100) also mentions Han Fei in his list of exemplary authors (Huang Hui 1990: 84.1177).
- 9.
The title “Shuinan” apparently lent itself to punning. A comment in the Records of the Historian biography of Han Fei reads (Sima Qian 1959: 63.2155), “I only lament that Master Han made The Difficulties of Persuasion (說 *lhots) but could not extricate (脫 *lhot or *lot) himself.” For reconstructions of Old Chinese, see Schuessler (2009).
- 10.
The line continues: “Pitiable is Master Han, who died in the end from ‘Persuasion’s Difficulties.’” Unlike Yang Xiong and Ban Gu, Tao Qian was not harshly critical of Han Fei.
- 11.
The parallels between “Solitary Frustration” and “The Five Vermin” noted by Zheng Liangshu (Zheng Liangshu 1993: 108–20) lend some support to the idea of a core Han Feizi, although Zheng himself does not endorse this view.
- 12.
For the Lisao and Jiuge and the texts they later inspired, see Hawkes (1985).
- 13.
See Zhang Suzhen (1997: 358–77) for the argument that “Nanyan” is a later text that was modeled on “Shuinan.” Zhang does not fall into the trap of thinking that the use of the first-person pronoun in “Nanyan” is a mark of authenticity, as Lundahl argues (Lundahl 1992: 163). And where E. Bruce Brooks takes the “inexperience[d]” tone of “Nanyan” as evidence that it is an early work of Han Fei (Brooks 1994: 18ff), Zhang argues persuasively that the text was simply a clumsy imitation.
- 14.
See Lundahl (1992: 137–38) for a brief discussion of the reliability of the Records of the Historian as a source for Han Fei and the Han Feizi.
- 15.
Harris (2009) is a recent treatment of the amorality of Han Fei’s political theory.
- 16.
Han Fei was also an ally to Marxist historians of the 1970s who viewed traditional Chinese history in terms of the eternal “struggle between Confucianism and legalism” (ru fa douzheng 儒法鬥爭).
- 17.
These are: “Shuinan,” the upper and lower “Forest of Persuasions” chapters, the six “Chushuo” chapters, “Bashui” 八說 (“Eight Persuasions”), and “Shuiyi” 說疑 (“Suspicion of Persuaders”).
- 18.
See Kern (2000) for a discussion of this development in the context of shui and shuo prose genres.
- 19.
- 20.
Major et al. (2010: 618): “shui could be understood as a particular type of shuo—that is, as a recorded conversation or exchange in which the chief speaker tries to persuade the listener of a clearly articulated point of view or policy position.”
- 21.
Bian 辯 is derived from bian 辨, meaning “to distinguish” or “discriminate,” and in positive contexts can be translated as “dispute” or “debate.” Negative connotations derive from the equation of “being discriminating in one’s words” to “speaking cleverly.” The gloss of bian as qiaoyan 巧言 is attested in the Heshang gong 河上剬 commentary to Laozi 81 (“Trustworthy words are not fine, and fine words are not trustworthy; good men do not speak cleverly, and clever speakers are not good”; Lau 1996: 81/4c).
- 22.
See also Chen Qiyou (2000: 17.41.950): “Someone asked, ‘From what do clever words arise?’ I answered, ‘They arise from superiors’ ignorance.’”
- 23.
“Tingyan 聽言” (“Listening to Words”) is also a section heading in the Lüshi chunqiu (Chen Qiyou 2002: 13.702).
- 24.
In this respect, the Han Feizi’s ideal government somewhat resembles that described in the Zhouli 周禮 (Rites of Zhou), a third-century BCE constitution whose system of information management also makes no room for speech that falls outside the prescribed duties for individual offices. On this feature of the Zhouli, see Schaberg (2009).
- 25.
See also Chen Qiyou (2000: 2.6.107): “If as ruler of men one were to personally inspect the bureaucracy, the day would not be long enough and his energy would not be sufficient.”
- 26.
Schaberg (forthcoming: 19). Schaberg bases this understanding of qing in part on Harbsmeier (2004).
- 27.
On this point, see the Guiguzi 鬼谷子 (Xu Fuhong 2008: 7.106): “To persuade a ruler one should thoroughly investigate his qing.”
- 28.
This interest distinguishes “Forest of Persuasions” from the “Chushuo” chapters, which preface anecdotes with the lessons to be drawn from them. One can also compare the Han Feizi “Forest of Persuasions” with the Huainanzi “Shuilin” 說林 and “Shuishan” 說山 (“Mountain of Persuasions”), which Major et al. have characterized as “handbooks for people who knew that they would be asked to speak on a regular basis,” or “stereotyped arguments that [a ruler’s] advisers and other participants might use in court sessions, so he could distinguish genuinely new ideas from hackneyed talking points” (Major et al. 2010: 623–24).
- 29.
An even more colorful illustration of this point is furnished by a “Forest of Persuasions” anecdote in which a minister gleans that his lord is displeased about a tree on the minister’s estate that is blocking the southern view from the lord’s tower. After initially resolving to cut down the tree, the minister changes his mind and gives the following explanation: “‘The ancients had a saying: ‘Knowing the fish of the deep is inauspicious.’ Now if Tianzi is planning some great deed and I reveal that I apprehend his subtle hints, then I will surely be in danger. There is, as yet, no crime in not chopping down the tree. But knowing what another does not speak of is a great crime indeed” (Chen Qiyou 2000: 7.22.485–86). See also Reeve (2003: 221–23) for a translation and discussion of this passage.
- 30.
Chanyu is not used in “The Difficulties of Persuasion,” but it does appear in a negative context in “Suspicion of Persuaders” (“Shuiyi” 說疑, Chen Qiyou 2000: 17.44.974).
- 31.
Also compare this imagery with the depiction of Robber Zhi as a wild beast in his encounter with Confucius in the Zhuangzi (Guo Qingfan 1961: 29.990ff.). The portrayal of shui as a dangerous business is something that sets “Shuinan” apart from the Zhanguo ce 戰國策 (Stratagems of the Warring States), another early text with a keen interest in persuasion. According to J.I. Crump, the Zhanguo ce in a few passages indicates that persuaders were “exenet from ordinary rules governing lèse majesté—resembling somewhat the immunity of the European court fool or jester. … One finds statements by rulers such as ‘If this is a persuasion I shall allow it; if it is not you will die!’” (Crump 1996: 46).
- 32.
These are the eight types of treacherous subjects in “Bajian” (Chen Qiyou 2000: 2.9.181–98).
- 33.
Zheng follows Zhou Xunchu (Zhou Xunchu 1980: 129–30) in arguing that “Shuinan” was composed towards the end of Han Fei’s life.
- 34.
See also Goldin (2011): “The fact that Han Fei endorses the calculated pursuit of self-interest, even if it means speaking disingenuously before the king, is not easily reconcilable with the notion that he was advancing a science of statecraft.” Goldin’s main target in this essay is the Han Feizi’s status as the foremost representative of “legalist” thought.
- 35.
In making this argument, Goldin discounts the possibility that contradictions between “Shuinan” and other Han Feizi chapters are due to multiple authorship (Goldin 2005: 62).
- 36.
The redundancy in Yang Xiong’s response may indicate a corruption in the line (Wang Rongbao 1987: 9.209ff.).
- 37.
This idea echoes Xunzi: “A junzi finds shui difficult. If he must shui without following the Way, he will not do shui” (Wang Xianqian 1988: 19.27.516).
- 38.
See Arbuckle (1991: 34–46) for a discussion of the problems involved in dating these memorials. The fact that this text is preserved not in the Records of the Historian but in the much later Hanshu is further reason to suspect its authenticity.
- 39.
- 40.
Rhetoric 1355a (tr. Kennedy 1991: 3): “sophistry [i.e., the immoral use of rhetoric] is not a matter of ability but of deliberate choice [of specious arguments].”
- 41.
A colorful example of rhetoric’s indispensability is Su Qin’s condemnation in the Zhanguo ce of the rise of rhetoric, “a rushing, hendiadys-laden tri- and tetrasyllabic harangue with rhyme changes after every couplet.” See Kern (2003b: 417–19) for a translation and discussion.
- 42.
Yang Xiong’s comments on the morality of literary (i.e., fu 賦) composition closely track his comments on shui (Wang Rongbao 1987: 2.45–51). See also Kern (2003b) for a parallel effort to rescue Western Han fu 賦 authors from Yang Xiong’s moralizing critique.
- 43.
See Schaberg (forthcoming) for the effort to tease out the Mengzi’s theory of persuasion, specifically with respect to the “four starting-points” (siduan 四端) of Mengzi 2A.6.
- 44.
This parallel lends some credence to the claim that Han Fei was Xunzi’s student. (But see the chapter by Sato in this volume.)
- 45.
The meeting between Confucius and Nanzi is also referenced at Analects 6.28. The idea of “relying on” (yin 因) what is expedience also appears in the Lüshi chunqiu’s handling of Confucius’s meeting with Mi Zixia (Chen Qiyou 2002: 15.935).
- 46.
See also Halliwell (1996: 186): “If this leaves us close to where we started, with an essentially ambiguous and inconclusive verdict on the potential involvement of the rhetorician in the tasks of a philosophically respectable politikê, we should by now, I think, be prepared to regard this very indeterminacy as an ineliminable and thoroughly significant feature of the work’s interpretation of its subject.” For a thoughtful defense of the morality of Aristotle’s Rhetoric, see Engberg-Pedersen (1996).
- 47.
Plato’s Gorgias is the source of his most scathing critique of persuasion and rhetoric. See esp. Gorgias 453ff.
- 48.
A number of scholars (e.g., Lloyd 1996) have noted that writings on rhetoric and persuasion from early China and ancient Greece and Rome reflect very different sociopolitical contexts. Whereas Greek and Roman orators had to move large audiences, Chinese persuaders dealt with individual potentates in more intimate settings. However, the foregoing discussion indicates that the problem of morality of persuasion to some extent cuts transcends such differences.
- 49.
- 50.
As with “Shuinan,” the attribution of “Gufen” to Han Feizi is attested in Western Han sources. Aside from the Records of the Historian 63 and 130 passages discussed above, see He Ning (1998: 20.1424).
- 51.
These questions are also echoed in “Heshi” (Chen Qiyou 2000: 4.13.275).
- 52.
This language sets “Shuinan” apart from an early text that truly does not evince an interest in objective standards of right and wrong, the Guiguzi. See Broschat (1985) for a study and translation.
- 53.
Aristotle also saw this point: “it is not the case, as some of the technical writers propose in their treatment of the art, that fair-mindedness on the part of the speaker makes no contribution to persuasiveness; rather, character is almost, so to speak, the controlling factor in persuasion” (Rhetoric 1356a; tr. Kennedy 1991: 38). However, Aristotle was reluctant to acknowledge the importance of reputation to the success of a persuasion, and argued that character “should result from the speech, not from a previous opinion that the speaker is a certain kind of person” (Rhetoric 1356a; tr. Kennedy 1991: 38).
- 54.
The “Nanyan” author also picked up on this point when he wrote that “fools are hard to shui” (yuzhe nan shui 愚者難說). Compare this with the Zhuangzi’s defense of the practice of “lodging words” (yuyan 寓言) in others’ mouths: “This is not my fault, it is the fault of others” (Guo Qingfan 1962: 27.948).
- 55.
- 56.
See Leo Chang’s (1998) entry on Han Feizi in the Routledge Encylopedia of Philosophy (s.v.). For the argument that the Han Feizi nevertheless pursues decidedly moral ends, see Wang and Chang (1986: 110–31). Wang and Chang also include a list of passages on the subject of “benefiting the people” (limin 利民).
- 57.
See Ford (1993) for a useful discussion of the role of the sophists in Western intellectual history.
- 58.
Cole (1991: 13): “Rhetorical discourse is not the opposite of philosophical discourse but rather, in most situations, its complementary contrary, and only capable of being identified and studied by reference to the appropriate philosophical counterpart”.
Works Cited
Arbuckle, Gary. 1991. Restoring Dong Zhongshu (BCE 195–115): An experiment in historical and philosophical reconstruction. Ph.D. dissertations, Columbia, University of British Columbia.
Ban, Gu 班固. 1962. History of the Han 漢書. Beijing: Zhonghua.
Boltz, William G. 1994. The origin and early development of the Chinese writing system. New Haven: American Oriental Society.
Brooks, E. Bruce. 1994. The present state and future prospects of Pre-Han text studies. Sino-Platonic Papers 46: 1–74.
Broschat, Michael Robert. 1985. ‘Guiguzi’: A textual study and translation. Ph.D. dissertation, Washington, DC, University of Washington.
Chan, Wing-Tsit. 1963. A source book in Chinese philosophy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Chang, Leo S. 1998. Han Feizi. In Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. E. Craig. London: Routledge. Retrieved 04 June 2012, from http://www.rep.routledge.com/article/G046.
Chen, Qiyou 陳奇猷. 2000. Han Feizi, with new collations and commentary 韓非子新校注. Shanghai: Guji.
Chen, Qiyou. 2002. Springs and Autumns of Mr. Lü, with new collations and explanations 呂氏春秋新校釋. Shanghai: Guji.
Chen, Qiyou, and Zhang, Jue 張覺. 1990. A guide to reading the Han Feizi 韓非子導讀. Chengdu: Ba Shu.
Cole, Thomas. 1991. The origins of rhetoric in ancient Greece. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Crump, J.I., Trans. 1996. Chan-kuo ts’e. Revised edition. Michigan monographs in Chinese studies, vol. 77. Ann Arbor: Center for Chinese Studies, University of Michigan.
Engberg-Pedersen, Troels. 1996. Is there an ethical dimension to Aristotelian rhetoric? In Essays on Aristotle’s rhetoric, ed. Amélie Rorty, 116–141. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Ford, Andrew. 1993. Platonic insults: Sophistic. Common Knowledge 2: 33–48.
Goldin, Paul R. 2005. Han Fei’s doctrine of self-interest. In After Confucius: Studies in early Chinese philosophy, 58–65. Honolulu: University of Hawaii.
Goldin, Paul R. 2011. Persistent misconceptions about Chinese ‘legalism’. Journal of Chinese Philosophy 38(1): 64–80.
Guo, Qingfan 郭慶藩 (1844–1896?). 1961. Zhuangzi, with collected explanations 莊子集釋. Beijing: Zhonghua.
Graham, A.C. 1989. Disputers of the Tao: Philosophical argument in Ancient China. La Salle: Open Court.
Halliwell, Stephen. 1996. The challenge of rhetoric to political and ethical theory in Aristotle. In Essays on Aristotle’s rhetoric, ed. Amélie Rorty, 175–190. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Harbsmeier, Christoph. 2004. The semantics of Qing in Pre-Buddhist Chinese. In Love and emotions in traditional Chinese literature, ed. Halvor Eifring, 69–148. Leiden: Brill.
Harris, Eirik Lang. 2009. Morality in politics: Panacea or poison? Ph.D. dissertation, University of Utah, Utah.
Hawkes, David, Trans. 1985. The songs of the south: An ancient Chinese anthology of poems by Qu Yuan and others. New York: Penguin.
He, Ning 何寧. 1998. The master of Huainan, with collected explanations 淮南子集釋. Beijing: Zhonghua.
Huang, Hui 黃暉. 1990. Balance of discourses, with collations and explanations 論衡校釋. Beijing: Zhonghua.
Kennedy, George Alexander. 1991. On rhetoric: A theory of civic discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kern, Martin. 2000. ‘Persuasion’ Or ‘Treatise’? The Prose Genres Shui 說 and Shuo 說 in the Light of the Guwenci Leizuan of 1779. In Ad Seres et Tungusos: Festschrift für Martin Gimm, ed. Bieg Lutz et al., 221–243. Wiesbaden: Harassowitz.
Kern, Martin. 2003a. The ‘biography of Sima Xiangru’ and the question of the Fu in Sima Qian’s Shiji. Journal of the American Oriental Society 123(2): 303–316.
Kern, Martin. 2003b. Western Han Aesthetics and the Genesis of the Fu. Harvard Journal of Asian Studies 63(2): 383–437.
Klein, Esther. 2010. The history of a historian: Perspectives on the authorial roles of Sima Qian. Ph.D. dissertation, Princeton University, Princeton.
Lau, D.C (ed.). 1996. Concordance to the Laozi 老子逐字索引. ICS ancient text concordance series, 24. Hong Kong: Shangwu.
Lewis, Mark Edward. 1999. Warring states political history. In The Cambridge history of ancient China: From the origins of civilization to 221 B.C, ed. Michael Loewe and Edward L. Shaughnessy, 587–650. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Li, Wai-yee. 1994. The idea of authority in the Shi Ji (Records of the historian). Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 54: 345–405.
Liao, W.K., Trans. 1939–1959. The comple te works of Han Fei tzu: A classic of legalism, 2 vols. Probsthain’s oriental series, 25–26. London: A. Probsthain.
Lin, Yutang (1895–1976), and Hu, Shih. 1931. China’s own critics: A selection of essays by Hu Shih and Lin Yu-Tang. Trans. John P. Chang, ed. T’ang Leang-li. Peiping: China United Press.
Lloyd, G.E.R. 1996. Adversaries and authorities: Investigations into Ancient Greek and Chinese Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lu, Qinli 逯欽立. 1979. Tao Yuanming’s collected works 陶淵明集. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju.
Lu, Xing. 1998. Rhetoric in ancient China, fifth to third century, B.C.E.: A comparison with classical Greek rhetoric. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
Lundahl, Bertil. 1992. Han Fei Zi: The man and the work. Stockholm: Institute of Oriental Languages, Stockholm University.
Major, John S, et al., Trans. 2010. The Huainanzi: A guide to the theory and practice of government in early Han China. Translations from the Asian Classics. New York: Columbia University Press.
Nienhauser, William H. Jr. (ed.). 1994. The grand scribe’s records, 9 vols. Projected. Bloomington/Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.
Oates, Whitney Jennings. 1963. Aristotle and the problem of value. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Reeve, Michael. 2003. Demonstrating the world: Mind and society in the Shuo Lin chapters of the Han Fei Zi. Ph.D. dissertation, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Rong, Zhaozu. 1982. “Examining Han Fei’s authorship” 韓非的著作考. In Polemics on ancient history 古史辨, ed. Gu Jiegang 顧頡剛 (1893–1980) et al., 4.653–4.674. Shanghai: Guji.
Routledge encyclopedia of philosophy. 1998. London/New York: Routledge.
Schaberg, David. 1997. Remonstrance in Eastern Zhou historiography. Early China 22: 133–179.
Schaberg, David. 2005. Playing at critique: Indirect remonstrance and the formation of Shi identity. In Text and ritual in early China, ed. Martin Kern, 193–225. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
Schaberg, David. 2009. The Zhouli as constitutional text. In Statecraft and classical learning: The Rituals of Zhou in East Asian History, ed. Benjamin A. Elman and Martin Kern, 33–63. Leiden:Brill.
Schaberg, David. Forthcoming. The ru ling mind: Persuasion and the origins of Chinese psychology.
Schuessler, Axel. 2009. Minimal old Chinese and later Han Chinese: A companion to Grammata Serica Recensa. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Sima, Qian 司馬遷. 1959. Records of the historian 史記. Beijing: Zhonghua.
Wang, Rongbao 汪榮寶 (1878–1933). 1987. Model sayings, with a Sub-commentary on their meaning 法言義疏. Beijing: Zhonghua.
Wang, Xianqian 王先謙 (1842–1918). 1988. Xunzi, with collected explanations 荀子集解, ed. Shen Xiaohuan 沈嘯寰 and Wang Xingxian 王星賢. Beijing: Zhonghua.
Wang, Hsiao-po, and Leo S. Chang. 1986. The philosophical foundations of Han Fei’s political theory. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Wang, Jue 王珏, and Hu, Xinsheng 胡新生. 2005. Assessing the ironic nature of the Han Feizi’s ‘difficulties of persuasion’ 試論《韓非子 說難》的反諷性質. Dongyue Tribune 東岳論叢 26: 128–133.
Watson, Burton, Trans. 1964. Han Fei Tzu: Basic writings. New York: Columbia University Press.
Xiang, Zonglu 向宗魯. 1987. Garden of persuasions, with collations and analysis 說苑校証. Beijing: Zhonghua.
Xu, Fuhong 許富宏. 2008. The master of the demon valley, with collected collations and collected commentary 鬼谷子集校集注. Beijing: Zhonghua.
Zhang, Suzhen 張素貞. 1997. The “Nan” Chapters of the Han Feizi: The art of debate in the Han Feizi 韓非子難篇研究:韓非子的辯論術. Taipei: Xuesheng.
Zheng, Liangshu. 1993. The composition and thought of the Han Feizi 韓非之著書及思想. Taipei: Xuesheng.
Zhou, Xunchu 周勳初. 1980. Reading notes on the Han Feizi 韓非子札記. Nanjing: Jiangsu renmin.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hunter, M. (2013). The Difficulty with “The Difficulties of Persuasion” (“Shuinan” 說難). In: Goldin, P. (eds) Dao Companion to the Philosophy of Han Fei. Dao Companions to Chinese Philosophy. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4318-2_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4318-2_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-4317-5
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-4318-2
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)