Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

SUNZI VERSUS XUNZI: TWO VIEWS OF DECEPTION AND INDIRECTION

  • Lisa Raphals (a1)

Abstract

This article examines two views of the ethics and efficacy of deception. The Sunzi is famous for its praise of deception and indirect strategy in warfare. This explicit praise of deception distinguishes it from other Militarist texts, which either reject deception or advocate it only as a practical and important strategic tool. The Xunzi rejects deception and indirection in both civil and military contexts. The Sunzi and Xunzi's attitudes toward deception and indirection thus represent opposite poles within Chinese philosophical thought.

本文探討了關於欺騙的倫理與功效的兩種觀點。對欺騙和間接戰術的推崇是孫子思想中廣為人知的一點。中國古代的兵書往往對欺騙持兩種態度: 一或全然否定, 一或僅僅將之視為一種實用而重要的戰略工具,而孫子對於欺騙不遺餘力的褒揚可謂獨樹一幟。在荀子看來,無論是在民用還是軍用的語境下,欺騙都應被否定。孫子與荀子對於欺騙和間接的不衕態度代表了中國哲學思想中截然相反的兩極。

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      SUNZI VERSUS XUNZI: TWO VIEWS OF DECEPTION AND INDIRECTION
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      SUNZI VERSUS XUNZI: TWO VIEWS OF DECEPTION AND INDIRECTION
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      SUNZI VERSUS XUNZI: TWO VIEWS OF DECEPTION AND INDIRECTION
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

References

Hide All

1. See Antonio S. Cua, “Self Deception,” in Encyclopedia of Chinese Philosophy, ed. Antonio S. Cua (London: Routledge, 2003), 670–78, and Roger T. Ames and Wimal Dissanayake, eds., Self and Deception: A Cross-Cultural Philosophical Enquiry (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1996).

2. In Plato‘s Protagoras (358d) Socrates claims that akrasia does not exist because no one willingly goes toward the bad. Aristotle (Nicomachean Ethics VII.1–10) disagrees. For him, akratic individuals disregard what reason dictates they should do for reasons that include emotional influences but also self-deception.

3. Augustine, “On “Lying,” in Treatises on Various Subjects, in Fathers of the Church, ed. R. J. Deferrari, vol. 16 (New York: Fathers of the Church, 1952): 86–88. For discussion see Harry G. Frankfurt, On Bullshit (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005), 56–59.

4. See Frankfurt, On Bullshit; Thomas L. Carson, Lying and Deception: Theory and Practice (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), especially 46–50; and Mahon, James E., “A Definition of Deceiving,” International Journal of Applied Philosophy 21 (2007), 181–94, and “The Definition of Lying and Deception,” Stanford Online Encyclopedia of Philosophy [accessed February 2008].

5. Carson, Lying and Deception, 46.

6. For deception as successful see Gilbert Ryle, The Concept of Mind (London: Hutchinson, 1949), 130, and Carson, Lying and Deception, 46.

7. Carson, Lying and Deception, 47–50, Mahon, “A Definition of Deceiving,” 189–90.

8. Frankfurt, On Bullshit, 54.

9. Frankfurt, On Bullshit, 53–56.

10. “Indirection, n.” OED Online. September 2015. Oxford University Press. http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/94533?redirectedFrom=indirection&. [accessed September 2015]

11. For the Sunzi see Yinqueshan Han mu zhujian zhengli xiaozu, Sunzi bingfa 孫子兵法 (Beijing: Wenwu, 1976). For additional accounts see Libo, Zhan 詹立波, “Luetan Linyi Han mu zhujian Sunzi bingfa” 略談臨沂漢幕竹簡孫子兵法, Wenwu 12 (1974), 1319 ; Sunzi jiaoshi 孫子校釋, ed. Wu Jiulong 吴九龙 et al. (Beijing: Junshi kexue, 1990); and Li Ling 李零, Sunzi guben yanjiu 孫子古本研究 (Beijing: Beijing daxue, 1995), 207–23. For the Sun Bin see Sun Bin bingfa 孫臏兵法 (Beijing: Wenwu, 1975). For the Wei Liaozi and other Militarist texts see Yinqueshan Han mu zhujian zhengli xiaozu, “Yinqueshan jianben Wei Liaozi shiwen (fu jiaozhu)” 銀雀山本 尉繚子釋文(附校注) Wenwu 1977.2, 21–27; “Linyi Yinqueshan zhushu shou fa, shou ling, deng shisan pian” 臨沂銀雀山竹書守法守令等十三篇, Wenwu 1985.4, 27–37; Yinqueshan Han mu zhujian 銀雀山漢墓竹簡 (Beijing: Wenwu, 1985); and Wu Jiulong, Yinqueshan Han jian shiwen 銀雀山漢簡釋文 (Beijing: Wenwu, 1985). For discussion of these materials see Loewe, Michael, “Manuscripts Found Recently in China: A Preliminary Survey,” T'oung Pao 63 (1977), 131–35; Yates, Robin D. S., “New Light on Ancient Chinese Military Texts: Notes on Their Nature and Evolution, and the Development of Military Specialization in Warring States China,” T'oung Pao (2nd ser.) 74.4/5 (1988), 211–48; and Lewis, Mark Edward, “Writings on Warfare Found in Ancient Chinese Tombs,” Sino-Platonic Papers 158 (2005), 115 .

12. Sunzi bingfa 孫子兵法 (Shiyi jia zhu Sunzi jiao li 十一家注孙子校理, Beijing: Zhonghua, 1999), 1.2. Translations are my own unless otherwise specified, but are indebted to Samuel B. Griffith, Sun Tzu: The Art of War (London and New York: Oxford University Press, 1963), and Roger T. Ames, Sun Tzu: The Art of Warfare (New York: Ballantine, 1993). These translations are referenced hereafter as Griffith and Ames.

13. Sunzi bingfa, 13.290 (Ames, 169; Griffith, 144–45).

14. For quantitative calculations in the temple see Sunzi bingfa, 1.20. For discussion of the meaning of this phrase, and accounts of transition from mantic procedures to rational calculation see Ames, 283; Griffith, 71. See also Galvany, Albert, “Signs, Clues and Traces: Anticipation in Ancient Chinese Political and Military Texts,” Early China 38 (2015), 151–93; Robin McNeal, Conquer and Govern. Early Chinese Military Texts from the Yizhou shu (Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press, 2012), 117–21; and Ralph D. Sawyer, The Seven Military Classics of Ancient China (Boulder: Westview Press, 2003), 437, n. 21.

15. Sunzi bingfa, 3.67 and 6.120.

16. Sunzi bingfa, 3.62. The same phrase appears at 10.230.

17. Sunzi bingfa, 1.14–19 and 6.105–16, respectively.

18. Sunzi bingfa, 6.105–7.

19. Sunzi bingfa, 3.52.

20. 故上兵伐謀. Sunzi bingfa, 3.46. “Therefore the best military [action] is to attack the enemy's strategy (故上兵伐謀), next is to attack alliances, next is to attack the troops, and worst is to besiege walled cities” (Sunzi bingfa, 3.46–48, Ames, 111).

21. Alastair I. Johnston, Cultural Realism: Strategic Culture and Grand Strategy in Chinese History (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995).

22. For the Sun Bin see Joseph Needham, Robin D. S. Yates, et al., Science and Civilisation in China, Volume V Part 6 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 22, and Ames, Sunzi, 29–41. Although the Liutao is concerned with strategy, much of the book is concerned with detailed tactics (Sawyer, Seven Military Classics, 33–35). The Wuzi (Sawyer, Seven Military Classics, 202–5) also focuses on specific topics of central military interest, such as controlling the army, responding to change, and stimulating officers. The Sima fa and Wei Liaozi are primarily concerned with military administration and focus on the moral virtues of military leadership (Sawyer, Seven Military Classics, 116–19 and 232–38, respectively). The hostility of these two texts to deceptive strategy is discussed below.

23. Sunzi bingfa, 1.2–8.

24. 軍之所以患于君者三 Sunzi bingfa, 3.57. 勝者有五. Sunzi bingfa, 3.59.

25. 一曰度,二曰量,三曰數,四曰稱,五曰勝. Sunzi bingfa, 4.76–77, Griffith, 88.

26. Sunzi bingfa, 8.167–72 and 176–78.

27. 火攻有五. Sunzi bingfa, 12.276–78.

28. Richter, Matthias L., “Handling a Double-edged Sword: Controlling Rhetoric in Early China,” Asiatische Studien/Études Asiatiques 68.4 (2014), 1021–68, especially 1023–24.

29. Richter, “Handling a Double-edged Sword,” 1023.

30. Sunzi bingfa, 8.172.

31. Sunzi bingfa, 1.9 and 20, respectively.

32. Sunzi bingfa, 6.120 and 7.141, respectively. When ten or more chariots have been taken, those who took the first should obtain reward (Sunzi bingfa, 2.38).

33. Sunzi bingfa, 1.12 (Ames, 104; Griffith, 66).

34. Sunzi bingfa, 7.142 (Ames, 130; Griffith, 106).

35. Sunzi bingfa, 1.14–19 (Ames, 104–5; Griffith, 66–71).

36. 故善戰者,致人而不致于人. Sunzi bingfa, 6.106 (Ames, 126; Griffith, 96).

37. Sunzi bingfa, 6.116–17.

38. Sunzi bingfa, 11.252–53 (Ames, 159; Griffith, 136).

39. Sunzi bingfa, 11.254.

40. Sunzi bingfa, 11.264.

41. For the history of such teaching scenes see Mark Edward Lewis, Writing and Authority in Early China (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1999), 61–62.

42. For detailed discussion in the context of the Zhuangzi see Defoort, Carine, “Instruction Dialogues in the Zhuangzi: An ‘Anthropological’ Reading,” Dao 11 (2012), 459–78.

43. Wei Liaozi, 2 (“Bing tan” 兵談), B12/27/13–14, trans. after Sawyer, Seven Military Classics, 262. For citations to the Wei Liaozi, Wuzi, and Sima fa see D. C. Lau 劉殿爵, Ho Che Wah 何志華, and Chen Fong Ching 陳方正, eds., A Concordance to the Militarists 兵書四種逐字索引 (ICS series, Hong Kong: Commercial Press, 1992) B (Wei Liaozi: 15–35) C (Wuzi: 36–44) and D (Sima fa: 45–52). For translation see Sawyer, Seven Military Classics. This is the only occurrence of the terms gui, wei, or zha in the Wei Liaozi.

44. Sima fa, 2 (“Tian zi zhi yi” 天子之義), D2/47/8–9, trans. after Sawyer, Seven Military Classics, 131. This is the only occurrence of the terms gui, wei, or zha in the Sima fa.

45. Sun Bin bingfa jiao li 孫臏兵法校理 (ed. Zhang Zhenze 張震澤, Beijing: Zhonghua, 1984). I have consulted D. C. Lau and Roger T. Ames, Sun Pin: The Art of Warfare (Albany: SUNY Press, 2003). See also Ralph D. Sawyer, Sun Pin: Military Methods (Boulder: Westview Press, 1995).

46. Sun Bin bingfa jiao, 3.25 (Lau and Ames, Sun Pin, 99).

47. Sun Bin bingfa jiao li, 3.25–26 (Lau and Ames, Sun Pin, 100).

48. Sun Bin bingfa jiao li, 3.27–28 (Lau and Ames, Sun Pin, 102).

49. Sun Bin bingfa jiao li, 14.99 (Lau and Ames, Sun Pin, 184).

50. Sun Bin bingfa jiao li, 31.193 (Lau and Ames, Sun Pin, 175).

51. Lau and Ames, Sun Bin, 39.

52. Wuzi, C1/36/31–32 (“Tu guo” 圖國) (Sawyer, Seven Military Classics, 208).

53. Wuzi, C2/37/31, (“Liao di” 料敵) (Sawyer, Seven Military Classics, 210–11).

54. Wuzi, C2/38/2, (“Liao di”) (Sawyer, Seven Military Classics, 211).

55. Wuzi, C4/41/17–18 (“Lun jiang” 論將) (Sawyer, Seven Military Classics, 218).

56. I read 夫 as 天, following Taigong liutao jinzhu jinyi 太公六韜今註今譯, ed. Xu Peigen 徐培根 (Taipei: Taiwan shangwu, 1976), 106 (“Wang yi” 王翼). This is also clearly Sawyer's reading (Seven Military Classics, 60).

57. Taigong liutao 太公六韜 (Sibu congkan 四部叢刊 edn.), 3.9b–10a (“Wang yi” 王翼) (Sawyer, Seven Military Classics, 60–62).

58. Taigong liutao, 3.10b (“Xuan jiang” 選將) (Sawyer, Seven Military Classics, 63).

59. Taigong liutao, 3.13a (“Qi bing” 奇兵) (Sawyer, Seven Military Classics, 70–71).

60. 平心正節,以法度禁邪偽. Taigong liutao, 1.3b (“Ying xu” 盈虛) (Sawyer, Seven Military Classics, 42–43).

61. Taigong liutao, 1.5b (“Shang xian” 上賢) (Sawyer, Seven Military Classics, 49).

62. Taigong liutao, 4.19b (“Lei xu” 壘虛) (Sawyer, Seven Military Classics, 88).

63. Taigong liutao, 5.21b–22a (“Niao yu ze bing” 鳥雲澤兵) (Sawyer, Seven Military Classics, 93).

64. Taigong liutao, 5.22a (“Shao zhong” 少眾) (Sawyer, Seven Military Classics, 94–95).

65. 行之時為之際的精神状态. Pu, Pang 龐朴 “Jie niu zhi jie” 解牛之解, Xueshu Yuekan 學朮月刊 3 (1994), 1120, 15.

66. Jean François Billeter, “Pensée occidentale et pensée chinoise: le regard et l'acte,” in Différences, Valeurs, Hierarchie: Textes Offerts à Louis Dumont, ed. Jean-Claude Galey (Paris: École des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, 1984), 25–51, 47 and 50. Slingerland cites this study in his account of wu wei, but Billeter's discussion of Cook Ding never actually refers to wu wei. See Edward T. Slingerland, Effortless Action: Wu-wei as Conceptual Metaphor and Spiritual Ideal in Early China (New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 8.

67. Slingerland, Effortless Action, 5 and 7.

68. Billeter, , “La phenomenologie de l'activité dans le Zhuangzi,” Asiatische Studien 47.4 (1993), 545–58, 552.

69. Billeter, , “Non-pouvoir et non-vouloir dans le Zhuangzi: un paradigme,” Asiatische Studien 50.4 (1996, 853–80), 875–76, cf. 877–78.

70. Slingerland, Effortless Action, 5, cf. 294–96.

71. Slingerland, Effortless Action, 10. For this point see Fraser, Chris, “On Wu-Wei as a Unifying Metaphor,” Philosophy East and West 57.1 (2007), 97106, 97–98.

72. Lun yu jishi 論語集釋, ed. Cheng Shude 程樹德 (4 vols., Beijing: Zhonghua, 1996), 31.1062. Warring States texts give two distinct accounts of what ruling by wuwei might mean. It may refer to a ruler who has perfected himself and thus can transform others without deliberate action, as here. In his commentary to Analects 7.1 the Ming scholar Wang Fuzhi 王夫之 (1619–1692) likens Shun's ruling by wu wei to Confucius' claim at Analects 7.1 that he does not innovate (Lun yu jishi 13.431–36). Alternatively, if a ruler has chosen able ministers, they can govern effectively without his intervention. For this passage see Slingerland, Effortless Action, 175–76.

73. For more on the importance of “correct alignment” (zheng) in this context see Lisa Raphals, “Uprightness, Indirection, Transparency,” in Dao Companion to the Analects, ed. Amy Olberding (Dordrecht: Springer, 2014), 159–70.

74. Boshu Laozi jiaozhu 帛书老子校注, ed. Gao Ming 高明 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1996), 48.54.

75. Zhuangzi jishi 莊子集釋, ed. Guo Qingfan 郭慶藩 (Beijing, Zhonghua, 1961), 18.611.

76. Guanzi 管子 (Sibu beiyao 四部備要 ed.), 6.14a–b (“Bing fa”), trans. after W. Allyn Rickett, Guanzi, vol. 1 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1985), 277–78.

77. Guanzi, 13.2a (“Xin shu, shang” 心術上), trans. after W. Allyn Rickett, Guanzi, vol. 2 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998), 74.

78. Guanzi, 13.2b (“Xin shu, shang”), trans. after Rickett, Guanzi, vol. 2, 75.

79. Guanzi, 13.3b–4a (“Xin shu, shang”), trans. after Rickett, Guanzi, vol. 2, 77.

80. For example, “The person of highest virtue acts without acting [wu wei] and holds nothing in regard” (wu wei er wu yi wei 無為而無以為, Daode jing 38). The Daode jing recommends indirect action: “Do that which consists of not doing (wei wu wei); act in a way that is not acting (shi wu shi 事無事),” Daode jing 63.

81. Sunzi bingfa, 5.86.

82. François Jullien, Detour and Access: Strategies of Meaning in China and Greece, trans. Sophie Hawkes (New York: Zone Books, 2000); Sunzi bingfa, 5.69.

83. Sunzi bingfa, 7.135 (Ames, 129; Griffith, 102).

84. Sunzi bingfa, 7.135 (Ames, 129; Griffith, 102).

85. Sunzi bingfa, 7.145 (Ames, 130; Griffith, 106).

86. 削心約志,從事乎無為. Taigong liutao, 1.3b (“Ying xu”) (Sawyer, Seven Military Classics, 42).

87. Taigong liutao, 2.8a (“Wen qi” 文啟) (Sawyer, Seven Military Classics, 55).

88. Taigong liutao, 1.5b (“Shang xian”) (Sawyer, Seven Military Classics, 49), discussed above.

89. Fraser, “On Wu-Wei,” 97.

90. Slingerland, Effortless Action, 5.

91. Xunzi jishi 荀子集釋, ed. Li Disheng 李滌生 (Taipei: Taiwan xuesheng, 1988). Translations are my own unless otherwise indicated. I have consulted John Knoblock, Xunzi: A Translation and Study of the Complete Works (3 vols. [Palo Alto: Stanford University Press, 1988, 1990, 1994], henceforward Knoblock 1, 2, and 3, respectively) and Eric L. Hutton, Xunzi 荀子: The Complete Text (Princeton, Princeton University Press, 2014, henceforward Hutton).

92. Lun yu jishi, 1.16.

93. 舉直錯諸枉. Lun yu jishi, 25.873.

94. Lun yu jishi, 26.885–86.

95. The rectitude (zheng) of Duke Huan of Qi versus the craftiness (jue) of Duke Wen of Jin (14.15, Lun yu jishi, 29.979). A junzi can be deceived (qi) but not entrapped (wang 罔, 6.26, Lun yu jishi, 12.415). A man of worth does not anticipate deceit (zha) but is alert when it occurs (14.31, Lun yu jishi, 30.1013). The stupidity of antiquity manifested as straightforwardness (zhen 直); the stupidity of the present manifests as deceit (zha, 17.16, Lun yu jishi, 35.1224).

96. Lun yu jishi, 9.294 and 10.325.

97. Lun yu jishi, 35.1225

98. For a useful discussion of this issue see Hui-chieh Loy, “Language and Ethics in the Analects,” in Dao Companion to the Analects, ed. Amy Olberding (Dordrecht and New York: Springer, 2014, 137–58), 138.

99. Mengzi zhengyi 孟子正義, ed. Jiao Xun 焦循 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1987), 10.320. Several other passages refer to dissimulations. A man who caught no birds driving a chariot according to the rules caught many by driving “deceitfully” (zha, 3B1). An advocate of the doctrines of Shen Nong claims that if his teachings were followed, there would be only one price in the market and no deceit (wei) in the state, so if even a small boy were sent to the market, no one would take advantage of him (qi, 3A4).

100. Mengzi zhengyi, 18.627.

101. Mengzi zhengyi, 6.199.

102. See Michael Puett, The Ambivalence of Creation: Debates Concerning Innovation and Artifice in Early China (Palo Alto: Stanford University Press, 2001), 65–69.

103. This point also is emphasized by Feng Yu-lan in his History of Chinese Philosophy (trans. Derk Bodde, 2 vols., 2nd ed. [Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1952], 1: 286). As Kurtis Hagen points out, it is given a slightly different twist in Kakimura Takashi 柿村峻 and Azuma Jūji's 吾妻重二 Japanese translation (Chūgoku Tetsugakushi 中國哲學史 [Tokyo: Fuzanbo, 1995], 423), emphasizing that morality is man-made (ren wei 人為), and is included in what Xunzi calls artifice. See Hagen, Kurtis, “Artifice and Virtue in the Xunzi ,” Dao 3.1 (2003), 85107, 89, n. 8.

104. Xunzi jishi, 23.544 (Hutton, 250; Knoblock, 3:153–54), cf. Puett, Ambivalence of Creation, 66.

105. For these points see Puett, Ambivalence of Creation, 65–69.

106. Hagen, “Artifice and Virtue,” especially 85–86.

107. Hagen, “Artifice and Virtue,” cf. Rokurō, Kodama 児玉六郎, “Junshi no ‘ren zhi xing e, qi shan zhe wei ye’ no kaisyaku” 荀子の「人之性悪,其善者偽也」の解釈,” Kagoshima kōgyō kōtō senmon gakkō kenkyū hōkoku 8 (1973), 7989 , and Junshi no shisō 荀子の思想 (Tokyo, 1992), 19.

108. Hagen, “Artifice and Virtue,” 88, cf. Itano Chōhachi 板野長八, Jukyō Seiritsushi No Kenkyū 儒教成立史の研究 (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1885), 270.

109. 足食。足兵。民信之矣. Lun yu jishi, 24.836.

110. 聖人之用兵也,以禁殘止暴於天下也;及後世貪者之用兵也,以刈百姓,危國家也. Da Dai liji jiegu 大戴禮記解詁, ed. Wang Pingzhen 王聘珍 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1983), 75.209.

111. See Paul van Els, “How to End Wars with Words,” in The Mozi as an Evolving Text: Different Voices in Early Chinese Thought, ed. Carine Defoort and Nicolas Standaert (Leiden: Brill, 2013, 69–94), 86–87. The Mohist chapters distinguish between punitive warfare (zhu 誅) against guilty states—what in modern terms would be called a “just war”—and aggressive warfare (gong 攻) against innocent ones. See Mozi (Mozi zhuzi suoyin 墨子逐字索引, Institute for Chinese Studies Concordance [Hong Kong: Commercial Press, 2001]), 19.34/18.

112. Mozi, 18.31/2–20; van Els, “How to End Wars with Words,” 80–81. The Mozi also addresses another point that is prominent in the Sunzi: that besieging walled cities is ineffective (Mozi, 18.31/21–22, Sunzi bingfa, 3.48).

113. Mengzi zhengyi, 28.962, trans. D. C. Lau, Mencius (New York: Penguin Books, 1970), 194.

114. 征之為言正也,各欲正己也,焉用戰? Mengzi zhengyi, 28.962, trans. Lau, Mencius, 195. He also attributes to Confucius the view that experts in war should suffer the most severe punishments (4A14, Mengzi zhengyi, 15.516). He further claims that: “in the Springs and Autumns there are no just wars” (yi zhan 義戰, 7B2, Mengzi zhengyi, 28.954).

115. Xunzi jishi, 15.265–66.

116. Xunzi jishi, 15.266 (Hutton, 145; Knoblock, 2:219).

117. Xunzi jishi, 15.266 (Hutton, 145; Knoblock, 2:219).

118. 仁人之兵,不可詐也. Xunzi jishi, 15.266.

119. 君臣上下之間,渙然有離德者也. Xunzi jishi, 15.266–67.

120. Xunzi jishi, 15.267–69.

121. Xunzi jishi, 15.266.

122. For Xunzi‘s position see Stalnaker, Aaron, “Xunzi's Moral Analysis of War and Some of Its Contemporary Implications,” Journal of Military Ethics 11.2 (2012), 97113 , especially 99–101.

123. Xunzi jishi, 15.270

124. Stalnaker, “Xunzi's Moral Analysis of War,” 99–100.

125. Xunzi jishi, 15.274.

126. Xunzi jishi, 15.275.

127. Xunzi jishi, 15.276.

128. Sunzi bingfa, 6.120–23, discussed above.

129. For example, the Xunzi (15.277) specifies three circumstances under which a general cannot accept a ruler's orders: he cannot be forced to take an untenable position, engage the enemy with no victory or oppress the people.

130. Xunzi jishi, 15.271 (Hutton, 148; Knoblock, 2:222).

131. Xunzi jishi, 15.277 (Hutton, 152; Knoblock, 2:225).

132. Sunzi, 1.2. This point is indebted to McNeal, Conquer and Govern, 23–25.

133. Xunzi jishi, 15.270.

134. Xunzi jishi, 15.278–79. Similar prohibitions appear in the Sima fa: not to pursue a fleeing enemy, to treat the wounded and sick with sympathy, and to pardon those who submitted (D1/45/3–5), and not destroy temples, buildings, forests, animals (wild or domestic), grains or tools (D1/45/23–25, trans. Sawyer, Seven Military Classics, 126–28).

135. Xunzi jishi, 15.280.

136. Shuo yuan jiaozheng 說苑校證, ed. Xiang Zonglu 向宗魯 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1987), 15.366–67. This story is probably based on a structurally similar narrative in Han Feizi 韓非子 (Sibu congkan 四部叢刊 edn.), 19.2a (“Wu du” 五蠹 49). For discussion and a different translation see McNeal, Conquer and Govern, 20–21.

137. McNeal, Conquer and Govern, 22.

138. Xunzi jishi, 20.381 (Hutton, 220; Knoblock, 3.83).

139. Xunzi jishi, 24.450.

140. Xunzi jishi, 12.237.

141. Xunzi jishi, 3.52.

142. Xunzi jishi, 12.242.

143. Xunzi jishi, 7.113. Therefore, one should never accept orders to engage in treachery (wei jian 為姦, 7.110). Similar principles apply to ritual. Xunzi describes the “way of degenerates” (jian ren zhi dao 姦人之道) as the appearance of ritual and duty for the sake of effect (19.359 and 19.364). It is also a deceptive way (jian dao) to neglect one's duties or the people to gain advancement or nurture a reputation (10.189).

144. Xunzi jishi, 12.241.

145. Bu gui yi, bu jing yi 不貴義, 不敬義. Xunzi jishi, 16.305.

146. Xunzi jishi, 11.205–6 (Hutton, 101; Knoblock, 2:152).

147. Xunzi jishi, 11.227, cf. 18.322 and 16.291.

148. Xunzi jishi, 11.228–29.

149. Xunzi jishi, 3.51.

150. Xunzi jishi, 24.450.

151. Xunzi jishi, 11.205.

152. Xunzi jishi, 12.230–31.

153. Xunzi jishi, 12.239. In domestic matters, he specifies as the duties of the one official to suppress lewdness and vice (fang yin chu xie 防淫除邪) among the people and to use the five punishments to prevent dissolute and evil behavior (jian xie 姦邪, 9.170).

154. Xunzi jishi, 23.499.

155. One of the practical uses of physiognomy was selecting people, and also animals and inanimate objects, for employment. For a different classification of persons by physiognomy see Wang Chong 王充 (27–97 c.e.), Lun heng 論衡 (Weighing Discourses), 3 (“Gu xiang” 骨相). For an explicit classification of persons for purposes of employment, see Liu Shao's 劉卲 (3rd century c.e.) Renwu zhi 人物志 (Treatise on Human Abilities). For discussion of physiognomy see Richard J. Smith, Fortune-tellers and Philosophers: Divination in Traditional Chinese Society (Boulder: Westview Press, 1991), 173–220, and Lisa Raphals, Divination and Prediction in Early China and Ancient Greece (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 38–39, 95–96, and 142–46.

156. Xunzi jishi, 5.88 (Hutton, 39; Knoblock, 1:210). See also 25.464, which argues that treacherous deceit (jian zha 姦詐) always has disastrous consequences. Elsewhere, Xunzi recommends employing the purveyors of deceptive doctrines, theories, actions, and abilities (jian yan, jian shuo, jian shi, jian neng 姦言,姦說,姦事,姦能) with official positions in the hope of improving them. See 9.149.

157. Xunzi jishi, 5.89 (Hutton, 39; Knoblock, 1:210–11).

158. Xunzi jishi, 5.89 (Hutton, 39; Knoblock, 1:210–11).

159. Xunzi jishi, 6.90 (Hutton, 40; Knoblock, 1:222–23). This kind of language occurs elsewhere in the Xunzi. For “ornamenting perverse doctrines” (shi xie shuo 飾邪說) see 4.60. For “treacherous statements” (jian yan) see 5.83, 9.151 and 22.422.

160. 其言之成理,足以欺惑愚眾. Xunzi jishi, 6.91.

161. 為詐而巧,言無用而辯,辯不惠而 察,治之大殃也. Xunzi jishi, 6.98–99.

162. Xunzi jishi, 8.140–41.

163. Xunzi jishi, 8.124 (Hutton, 56; Knoblock, 2:72).

164. Xunzi jishi, 14.259 (Hutton, 141; Knoblock, 2:206).

165. Xunzi jishi, 22.412 (Hutton, 236; Knoblock, 3:127). The same view is reinforced at the beginning the following chapter, “People's Nature of Problematic” (Ren zhi xing e 人之性惡), where Xunzi categorically states that: “People's inherent nature is problematic; any goodness is a matter of conscious and deliberate activity” 人之性惡,其善者偽也。See 23.434 (Hutton, 248; Knoblock, 3:150–51). For another example see 19.366.

166. 故析辭擅作名,以亂正名,使民疑惑,人多辨訟,則謂之大姦. Xunzi jishi, 22.414.

167. Xunzi jishi, 22.422.

168. Xunzi jishi, 22.423 (Hutton, 175; Knoblock, 3:133).

169. Hagen disagrees with what he calls the “realist” view of several recent English-language studies of Xunzi. On this view, Xunzi held that there is only one correct standard for morality and that it exists independently of humans. Hagen takes the strongly constructivist position that Xunzi's “order” is a deliberate human construction and is not derived from inherent nature. Hagen ascribes this realist view to Robert Eno, P. J. Ivanhoe, and T. C. Kline III. See Hagen, “Artifice and Virtue,” and The Philosophy of Xunzi: A Reconstruction (LaSalle: Open Court, 2007). For other views see Robert Eno, The Confucian Creation of Heaven: Philosophy and the Defense of Ritual Mastery (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1990), 146–52; Paul R. Goldin, Rituals of the Way: The Philosophy of Xunzi (Chicago: Open Court, 1999), 96, and The Theme of the Primacy of the Situation in Classical Chinese Philosophy and Rhetoric,” Asia Major (3rd ser.) 18.2 (2005), 125 .

170. For a review of this scholarship see Hagen, The Philosophy of Xunzi, especially 50–84. For concepts see Hagen, The Philosophy of Xunzi, 63–64, and Lin Lizhen, “Xunzi” 荀子, in Zhongguo lidai sixiangjia 中國歷代思想家, ed. Wang Shounian 王壽南, vol. 1 (Taipei: Taiwan Shangwu, 1978), 65.

171. Xunzi jishi, 19.356 (Hutton, 205; Knoblock, 3:61).

172. Xunzi jishi, 5.81–82.

173. For example, Xunzi jishi, 21.401–2 and 23.437–39.

174. For this argument see Puett, Ambivalence of Creation, 69–73.

175. Luan she jian ren zhi shuo 亂世姦人之說. Xunzi jishi, 21.409.

176. Xunzi jishi, 28.521.

177. For example, some contemporary psychologists include a “Machiavellianist” type within a taxonomy of so-called “dark personalities.” See Paulhus, D. L. and Williams, K. M., “The Dark Triad of Personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and Psychopathy,” Journal of Research in Personality 36 (2002), 556–63, and Paulhus, D. L., “Toward a Taxonomy of Dark Personalities,” Current Directions in Psychological Science 23.6 (2014), 421–26.

Keywords

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed