LI 1 Hazel Li All other information withheld for privacy purposes How do the texts approach the same issue

of effective government? The two primary sources I have chosen for this assignment are Li Si: Legalist Theorist in Practice from Sources of Chinese Tradition 1 and Emperor Taizong on Effective Government from Ebreys Chinese Civilization: A Sourcebook. In this paper, I wish to compare two differing views of the respective texts on the notion of achieving an effective government. The former primary source aforementioned contains a fabricated document from the Qin dynasty, and is obtained from Sima Qians highly regarded work, Shiji or Records of the Grand Historian, which he had written and completed some time in the first century BCE1. The latter document was written in 648 CE by Emperor Taizong of the Tang dynasty as an advice for his heir.2 The two works are different in their manner of justifying the means to attain an effective government, in that, one puts extreme focus on violence and censure, whereas the other favours a more humane approach of balance and shrewd judgment. The Qin View: Li Si and the Legalist Theory, as interpreted by Sima Qian It is crucial to keep in mind that Sima Qian was a historian who belonged in the Han dynasty, at the time when Emperor Wu an advocate of Confucianism reigned. He came into the picture much later following the downfall of the Qin government in 207 BC.3 Consequently, his Confucian-induced sentiments toward the Legalist Qin were not particularly those of positive and approving reviews.
1

Valerie Hansen, The Open Empire: A History of China to 1600 (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2000), 35. 2 Patricia B. Ebrey, Chinese Civilization: A Sourcebook (New York: The Free Press, 1993), 112. 3 Hansen 96.

LI 2 In this written record, Sima Qian depicts the Qin dynasty as an era of tyranny and utmost government leadership under the Legalist doctrine. He voices his interpretation through an important Legalist character, Li Si, who had become the prime minister for the new administration.4 Sima Qians article concerning the Qin dynasty and its government activities emphasizes the significance of an opportunistic and self-sufficed ruler who will by himself control the empire and will not be controlled by anyone,5 and whose main priority was to concentrate on the centralization of power and direct authority over the people. A key feature embedded within the Legalist theory is the exercise of heavy censure as a way of punishing transgressors and maintaining a submissive population, as well as to prevent further misdemeanours in the community. According to Sima Qians account, Li Si persuaded the Emperor to impose severe censure on lighter crimes to entrench fear among the citizens, and thus preventing them from committing heavier infractions: If a light offense is censured heavily, one can imagine what will be done against a serious offense! Thus the people will not dare to violate the laws6 Legalists also vehemently rejected the idea of Confucian rituals, which they thought to be a series of expensive and pointless ceremonies.7 In order to eliminate Confucianism and thoughts other than Legalism, the Emperor ordered the burning of books and execution of scholars, as per Li Sis recommendation.8 The Tang View: Emperor Taizong and Confucianism Many years later, in the seventh century CE, the Tang dynasty was established.
4

W. Theodore de Bary and I. Bloom, Sources of Chinese Tradition: Second Edition (New York: Columbia University Press, 2000), 206. 5 Ibid 211. 6 Ibid. 7 Hansen 101. 8 Bary 210.

LI 3 Near the end of his life in 648 CE, the second emperor of the Tang dynasty, Emperor Taizong wrote a text on how to carry out an effective government. In contrast to the Legalist theory of violence mentioned earlier, Taizongs policies resonated with Confucian notions, as they relied greatly on kindness and benevolence:
[A ruler] cannot expand his territory without majesty and virtue; he cannot soothe and protect his people without compassion and kindness. He comforts his relations with benevolence, treats his officials with courtesy, honors his ancestors with filial respect, and receives his subordinates with thoughtfulness.9

The fact that Emperor Taizongs ideals were rooted in Confucianism serves as an explanation as to why his views had vastly differed from those of the Legalists. His Confucian proclivity is evident as he makes multiple references to Confucius and the Way in writing about maintaining a balanced military unit and esteeming culture.10 Taizongs urge against extravagance reflected Xunzis teachings of frugality that if a ruler is frugal in expenditures, Heaven will not be able to impoverish or impair the state:11 The ruler cultivates his character through frugality and peacefulness. Restraining himself, he will not tire his people or disturb his subordinates.12 Also in contrast to the Legalist practice, which reckoned that all power must rest in the hands of the ruler, the Emperor believed that everything must be regulated and acted out in moderation to avoid excessiveness and/or insufficiency: Subordinates granted too much power can develop into insurmountable problems for the throne. On the other hand, subordinates granted too little power will not be strong enough to protect the throne.13 One of the only similarities
9

Ebrey 112. Ibid 114-115. 11 Ibid 24. 12 Ibid 114. 13 Ibid 113.
10

LI 4 in the Qin and Tang ruling techniques lied in the Tang Code, which reflected Legalist thinking in its insistence on the appropriate punishment for the crime, however it also upheld the Confucian principle of justice and filial piety, which demands that the penalty for killing ones father must be greater than that for killing a stranger.14 Ultimately, one can discern that Emperor Taizongs concept of an effective government was largely influenced by Confucianism. Why might there be similarities and differences? As someone who came much later in Chinese history, Emperor Taizong had the advantage of studying his many predecessors and their eventual failures. In his text, the Emperor goes on to compare bygone dynasties to one another, analyzing their weaknesses and providing solution according to what he thinks they could have done. Emperor Taizong draws on an analogy of a tree to illustrate the imprudence of past rulers for failing to comply with balance and regulation. In the specific case of the Qin, Taizong reinforces the importance of balance and argues that too much of something would result in its demise. In the same manner, too little of it would prove insufficient.15 As suggested by Taizongs critique of past dynasties, their experiences and failures served as a paradigm for the Tang government. Tang rulers, such as Emperor Taizong, would be able to learn and educate themselves by means of evaluating the performances of such dynasties. Fundamentally, this was Emperor Taizongs way of passing his views onto his heir, hence his written text on effective government. Such extreme differences in the views could also be attributed to the fact that it was Sima Qian from the Han dynasty which valued Confucian ideals who was
14 15

Hansen 199. Ibid.

LI 5 responsible for providing a written documentation of the Legalist practice. In his account of the Qin dynasty and Legalist system, Sima Qian might have exaggerated some facts to further demonstrate the cruel and wicked nature of the Legalists. According to Hansen, the Han account of the Qin could in actuality be an unreliable source of information, considering how much the two had opposed each other in theories and practices. In relation to the violent punishments as enforced by Qin officials, Hansen states, We must conclude that the Han-dynasty historians overstated these punishments to discredit the previous and fallen Qin dynasty.16

16

Hansen 110

LI 6 Works Cited de Bary, William Theodore, Irene Bloom, Wing-tsit Chan, Joseph Adler, and Richard John Lufrano. Sources of Chinese Tradition: Second Edition, Vol. 1. New York: Columbia University Press, 2000. Ebrey, Patricia B. Chinese Civilization: A Sourcebook. New York: The Free Press, 1981. Hansen, Valerie. The Open Empire: A History of China to 1600. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2000.