As a Confucian scholar, my aptitude to advise you comes from a love and appreciation for the past, particularly the harmonious glory of the early Zhou dynasty (ca.1100-770 BCE). Your highness has shown resentment to the school of Confucianism, and has even banned the use of Confucian books; instead, you have followed your father's footsteps in practising Legalist policies. I understand the risk of offending you, but as a Confucian, I cannot “seek to live by violating the virtue of humanity” even if “suffering death is necessary” (Confucian Teachings, 20). Thus, it is my wish to give you my advice as a Confucian scholar, particularly in handling the political, military and social aspects of your rule of this Qin empire.
As ruler, your duty is to be a gentleman, meaning you must practice five things, “reverence, generosity, truthfulness, diligence, and kindness” (p.19). Mencius contends that if you “practice benevolent government, the common people will love their superiors and die for those in charge of them” (p.23). Your example will influence your subordinates to do and act the same, and thus your morality trickles down to the lowest segments of our social hierarchy and reciprocates from bottom back to the top. Furthermore, to achieve humanity, an essential in being a gentleman, you must also restore the use of rituals. As Confucius contends, “when superiors love ritual the people are easy to direct” (p.22).
I am also opposed to the empire’s stringent Qin laws. As Confucius says, if the ruler leads the people by “means of government policies and regulate them through punishments,” the people “will be evasive and have no sense of shame.” However, if you “lead them by means of virtue and regulate them through rituals,” the people will naturally have a “sense of shame” implying that the people will regulate themselves (p. 21). As Confucius also points out, a son should never turn his father to the authorities, for it contradicts filial piety (p.21). Laws only complicate human relationships. If a person is virtuous, he or she would naturally turn themselves to authorities if they commit a crime. However, for this to happen, the ruler must ultimately be the one responsible for setting such models of virtue in which his people can emulate.
Therefore, there is no need for capital punishment. Since commoners are easy to persuade, the “virtue of a gentleman is like the wind, the virtue of a small person like the grass,” implying that if you rule and act benevolently, your subordinates will do the same as the “grass must bend” to your highness's “wind” of moral influence (p.21). Moreover, as Mencius contends, “in the world today, there are no rulers disinclined toward killing,” but if you were one of the few who did not kill people, everyone would revere you, and “would flow toward [you] the way water flows down” (p.22).
I also urge your highness to discontinue the creation of the Great Wall and other large projects. True, the wall might be able to resist northern barbarians from conquering our state, but at what cost? By forcing men to work laboriously and breaking up their families in the process -- all without remuneration -- the people will not accept these projects’ purposes. As Confucius contends, faith is the most important means in which the ruler should provide to his subjects. Creating fear and resentment from your subjects in the “interests” of the empire is a grave mistake. All the food and protection of an army cannot rival the power of faith, for as the Master says, since antiquity death is an unavoidable fact, but “people without faith cannot stand” (p.21). By faith, we Confucians refer to the peoples’ sense of order and harmony in the state.
Mencius’ narrative of King Wen’s park is an example of what I mean. The people loved him because they shared his park and thus enjoyed its firewood and birds and rabbits, so much so that they even “considered it small” (p.22). On the other hand, King Xuan of Qi’s park was “considered large” despite being physically smaller than Wen’s; the people reviled Xuan because he refused to share its fortune with his people. I urge your highness not to blindly conscript labourers to do such lethal work, for the people will only resent your harshness.
It is incorrect for Legalists to declare that there is “no need to follow the past.” Lord Shang argues that the “Shang and Xia dynasties fell despite preserving rituals” (p.33), but what he overlooks is that the Shang and Xia fell because their last kings lost their Mandates of Heaven. I will use “The Greater Brightness” in the Book of Songs as my testimony of history. It explains that the Shang fell to the Zhou because it was Heaven's will that gave the charge to King Wen "to join and smite the great Shang,” for the Shang ruler had lost the “Power” (the Way), and thus the loyalty of its subjects (Owen, 18). “Overbearing" is additional evidence to the Shang’s downfall. Because its last king “overstepped in [his] behaviour, unable to tell darkness from the light” Heaven punished the kingdom by giving “charge” to King Wen overthrow Shang, and banish it exactly as it had with the "reigns of the lords of Xia" (the preceding dynasty) (Owen, p.21). Hence, your highness must also be careful not to aggravate Heaven and risk the people’s trust, lest you will lose your mandate to rule, as had the Shang, whom had "much hate [which] comes back from harshness" (Owen, p. 20).
The Legalist, Han Feizi, argues that “since one cannot trust someone as close as a wife or child, there is no one that could be trusted” (Legalist Teachings, p.20). He argues that “not even half of all rulers die of illness” in the Spring and Autumn Period because most died in assassination (p.34). What Han overlooks is that much of these events occurred in a time of chaos. This was precisely why Confucius was so desperate in giving advice to the rulers of his time in order to persuade them to return to the chivalry that once existed in the moral order of the sage kings. For this reason, we should continue his quest to restore order and harmony as in the period of the sages.
I also disagree with the empire’s economic thinking, which places emphasis on the artisan and the farmer, based on “productivity,” while relegating the importance of the scholar. As Xunzi contends, it is these scholars who guide gentlemen in “learning, and following of ritual and moral principles” (Confucian Teachings, p.25). Even though they might not directly “produce,” scholars are nonetheless valuable to society, for their task is to cultivate virtuous and responsible citizens for the empire.
I urge you to cease your search for an elixir to immortality. Confucius argues that the gentleman must exert caution “when he reaches old age and his blood and spirit have begun to weaken, he must guard against envy” (p.18). It is a personal profit, and thus is immoral and dangerous. Mencius disputes that “once superiors and inferiors are competing for benefit, the state will be in danger” (p.22).
I have heard rumours that you are constructing a tomb for your next life, thus achieving immortality. As Confucius has argued, if one cannot even understand this life, then what use it to worry about the afterlife? I fear you will set a precedent in which the populace will eventually concern themselves more with the “nether world” than the present one. Instead, you should concentrate your efforts in being a virtuous ruler in improving the lives of the people, they will naturally honour you, and perform rites similar to those of the sage kings after your demise. As Confucius says, “the gentleman fears that after his death his name will not be honoured” (Confucian Teachings, p.19). Therefore, you must not force artisans and unfree labour to work in your tomb. I fear that if your highness continues sending innocent lives to death, your name and legacy that will be scarred as a brute.
I plead you to drop the title, “First August Emperor.” As Confucius pronounces, a gentleman is humble, for he reveres the “words of the sages” (p.18). By adopting this title you imply that you are greater than all the sage kings. It only shows your indifference and disrespect to the ideals and prominence of the early Zhou and its moral order. Your title’s intentions also conflict with the Confucian ideal that if the gentleman falls short of some task, he “does not feel bad if people fail to recognize him” (p.19). Since your unification of the empire, your highness is already the king of all kings. There is no need to further elevate your status, lest you will be seen as conceited, a hypocrite of all gentlemanly ideals.
The empire must also stop subdividing the household and regulating them through population registers. Penalizing households a surplus tax just because the adult son lives with their parents is immoral. When the son can no longer care for his parents in old age, not only is filial piety wrecked, the spiritual bond between parent and child would be negated, for as Confucius asserts, “when your father and mother are alive, do not go rambling around far away” (Confucian Teachings, p.21).
There has been great scepticism towards Confucianism from the Legalists often with indecorous remarks that Confucian principles are contradictory and backwards, impractical values that do not benefit the state (Legalist Teachings, p. 33). It is impossible for any school not to harbour some degree of limitation. Does Legalism not have its own weaknesses? Take Han Feizi’s demise as example. Because Han lived in constant suspicion and thus advised rulers not to trust anyone, his own student, Li Si, nonetheless betrayed him and slandered Han, which consequently forced him to commit suicide in 223 BCE (Legalist Teachings, p.32). How “practical” is Legalism to a ruler if the result is that the founders themselves cannot even protect themselves from their own teachings? According to Confucius, such an incident is unlikely to occur among gentlemen, for they “do not do unto others what you would not have them do unto you” (p.19). Hence, subordinates never betray their benevolent elders, let alone students harming their teachers, or subordinates to their emperor.
If we look closer to the basic ideals of both schools, what we make out is some basic resemblances. Both believe that the people “should join in in enjoying the results” (p.33). Moreover, the two have one common idea: it is the ruler’s responsibility to provide the most orderly and peaceful state possible for its populace. The main difference is that Legalism exercises laws of reward and punishment, while Confucianism is based on “laws” of humanity. Ultimately, Confucianism provides the most compassionate path to harmony, while Legalism produces only hurt and distress.
Thus, I urge you to consider my proposals for the betterment of the Qin empire. But as a Confucian, I believe it is possible for human goodness. And as the people’s ruler, your highness must be the first to set this example, and right your wrongs, for if a gentleman “finds a fault in himself, he does not shirk from reforming himself” (Confucian Teachings, p.19).
“A Greater Brightness.” An Anthology of Chinese Literature. Ed. Stephen Owen. W.W.
Norton & Company: New York, 1996: 10-25.
"Confucian Teachings," in Patricia Buckley Ebrey,
ed., Chinese Civilization: A
Sourcebook, 2nd ed. (New York, 1993), pp. 17-26
"Legalist Teachings," in Patricia Buckley Ebrey,
ed., Chinese Civilization: A
Sourcebook, 2nd ed. (New York, 1993), pp. 17-26
[1] The Analects, The Mencius, The Book of Songs, The Book of Rites, The Book of Documents, The Book of Changes, The Spring and Autumn Annals.