History Literature / TheBookOfLordShang

The book expounds on how one should run a state. The main points are to keep the people occupied with agriculture, war, and nothing else. Trade should be heavily taxed to avoid people gaining money and merit by means other than farming and fighting. The law should provide far more punishments than rewards, and the punishments for minor offenses should be severe so as to discourage anyone from JumpingOffTheSlipperySlope into more serious crimes. However, there are some palatable arguments; the authors maintain that promotion and advancement should be based entirely on merit, and have nothing to do with one's family or other circumstances. They also advocate that all people, from the Emperor to the lowest peasant, should be treated equally by the law. Unfortunately Lord Shang later bit the end of this when he was painfully executed, along with nine generations of his family, by the new king for having previously advocated treating him as a common criminal. Shang attempted to flee this fate but was apprehended when he was unable to stay at any inns without identifying himself, also a law that he had implemented.

Also note that Legalism as actually practiced by Qin could differ considerably than Legalism as espoused by the book. Qin legal codes from later in the Warring States discovered by archaeologists decreed a wide range of punishments, ranging from fines to state slavery to painful death, and contain some ideas much more sympathetic to modern eyes, such as forbidding wife-beating, placing strict regulations on interrogation techniques, and forcing people to help the victim of a crime in progress or be punished themselves, that were dropped for thousands of years once Qin fell. We also have bamboo slip letters written to and by common soldiers, suggesting that learning wasn't as suppressed in Qin as it's often claimed. When looking at Qin history, it's important to remember that every traditional work of history covering it has been written by someone with a good reason to villainize it (e.g. enemy state, successor state, member of the gentry.)

Also note that Legalism as actually practiced by Qin could differ considerably than Legalism as espoused by the book, or go further. Qin legal codes from later in the Warring States discovered by archaeologists decreed a wide range of punishments, ranging from fines to state slavery to painful death, and contain some ideas much more sympathetic to modern eyes, such as forbidding wife-beating, placing limitations on testimonials obtained by torture, and forcing people to help the victim of a crime in progress or be punished themselves.

* DystopiaIsHard: The sheer amount of effort required to rigidly control people to the extent posited in the book seems a lot harder than simply keeping them well-fed and happy would be, at least to modern eyes.
* FairForItsDay: In Lord Shang's time, China had been in near-continuous war ever since the Zhou Dynasty began to weaken in the 8th century BC, leaving its vassal states free to cannibalize each other. Qin before Lord Shang was a weak backwater state under real threat of conquest. Whatever else, Legalism *did* turn Qin into a superpower and end centuries of brutal war.

** Or UsefulNotes/NorthKorea.

* DystopiaIsHard: The sheer amount of effort required to rigidly control people to the extent posited in the book seems a lot harder than simply keeping them well-fed and happy would be.

----
<<|{{Literature}}|>>

''The Book of Lord Shang'' (商君书, ''Shang Jun Shu'') is the most important and well-known text of the Legalist school of Chinese philosophy. It was written over a period of about 100 years during the Warring States Period, lasting roughly 400 BC to 200 BC. Though it is traditionally attributed to Shang Yang, and he did indeed appear to have written ''part'' of it, the last few chapters refer to people and events which didn't occur until after his death.

The book expounds on how one should run a state. The main points are to keep the people occupied with agriculture, war, and nothing else. Trade should be heavily taxed to avoid people gaining money and merit by means other than farming and fighting. The law should provide far more punishments than rewards, and the punishments for minor offenses should be severe so as to discourage anyone from JumpingOffTheSlipperySlope into more serious crimes. However, there are some palatable arguments; the authors maintain that promotion and advancement should be based entirely on merit, and have nothing to do with one's family or other circumstances. They also advocate that all people, from the Emperor to the lowest peasant, should be treated equally by the law.

In direct contrast to the prevailing Confucian school, the Legalists believed that humans are naturally lazy, corrupt, petty, and wicked, hence the emphasis on punishment to be found throughout the book. It is worth noting that Legalism was the guiding philosophy of the Qin dynasty, which ruled over all China for just 15 years, from 221 to 206BC. After the Emperor died, they were replaced with the Han dynasty, who did make use of Legalist ideas, but extensively tempered them with Confucian notions.

* HoistByHisOwnPetard: Shang Yang met his end under a punishment that he himself formulated into Qin law, one reserved for law enforcers who broke the law themselves, when he ended up being accused of treason by the new king of Qin (in revenge for the abuse Shang heaped on the king when he was just a prince and Shang was his tutor) and Shang and his entire family were sentenced to death. And even better, when he tried to hide out in a hotel to escape the above fate, he was refused, as the strict laws he had enacted in Qin while in power made it illegal for a hotel owner to admit a guest without proper identification. He was later caught, followed by drawing and quartering by chariot.

* HoistByHisOwnPetard: Shang Yang met his end under a punishment that he himself formulated into Qin law, one reserved for law enforcers who broke the law themselves, when he ended up being accused of treason by the new king of Qin (in revenge for the abuse Shang heaped on the king when he was just a prince and Shang was his tutor) and Shang and his entire family were sentenced to death. When he tried to hide out in a hotel, he was refused, as the strict laws he had enacted in Qin while in power made it illegal for a hotel owner to admit a guest without proper identification. He was later caught, followed by drawing and quartering by chariot.

* SillyReasonForWar: Shang advises that the army should be at war as much as possible to prevent the soldiers falling victim to such parasites as virtue and care for the elderly.

** And [[{{irony}} ironically]], Shang and his family would suffer this very punishment when he was convicted of treason against King Huiwen of Qin (see HoistByHisOwnPetard above). The practice of family extermination, called the "Nine Exterminations" for the nine categories that family members would be put into, would be reserved for only the most heinous of offenses against the state (treason and rebellion) in feudal China until its eventual abolishment by the Qing Dynasty in 1905.

* HoistByHisOwnPetard: Shang Yang met his end under a punishment that he himself formulated into Qin law, one reserved for law enforcers who broke the law themselves, when he ended up being accused of treason by the new king of Qin (in revenge for abuse Shang heaped on the king when he was his tutor) and Shang and his entire family were sentenced to death. When he tried to hide out in a hotel, he was refused, as the strict laws he had enacted in Qin while in power made it illegal for a hotel owner to admit a guest without proper identification. He was later caught, followed by drawing and quartering by chariot.
** Wait, it gets better: It is theorised that one of the main reasons why he was accused of treason was revenge by the king for Shang's intransigence in punishing ''him'' for minor offenses when he was still a prince. Publicly whipping your future monarch isn't exactly considered a good idea by most people.

* AllCrimesAreEqual: Advocates using this. Didn't work out so well in practice.

* AllCrimesAreEqual: Advocates using this.

* HobbesWasRight: Shang was a firm believer in the notion that people were bastards that could only be kept in line by an iron hand.

* HobbesWasRight: Shang was a firm believer in the notion that people could only be kept in line by an iron hand.

* HobbesWasRight

Compare and contrast ''ThePrince''.

* HoistByHisOwnPetard: Shang Yang met his end under a punishment that he himself formulated into Qin law, one reserved for law enforcers who broke the law themselves, when he ended up being accused of treason by the new king of Qin and he and his entire family were sentenced to death. When he tried to hide out in a hotel, he was refused, as the strict laws he had enacted in Qin while in power made it illegal for a hotel owner to admit a guest without proper identification. He was later caught, followed by drawing and quartering by chariot.

In direct contrast to the prevailing Confucianist school, the Legalists believed that humans are naturally lazy, corrupt, petty, and wicked, hence the emphasis on punishment to be found throughout the book. It is worth noting that Legalism was the guiding philosophy of the Qin dynasty, which ruled over all China for just 15 years, from 221 to 206BC. After the Emperor died, they were replaced with the Han dynasty, who did make use of Legalist ideas, but extensively tempered them with Confucianist notions.

Compare ''ThePrince''.

* LawfulEvil: The {{novelization}}.

** Wait, it gets better: It is theorised that one of the main reasons why he was accused of treason was revenge by the king for Shang's intransigeance in punishing ''him'' for minor offenses when he was still a prince. Publically whipping your future monarch isn't exactly considered a good idea by most people.

* CompletelyMissingThePoint: When Shang argues that the army should be at war whenever possible, he cites ''{{The Art of War}}'' in favor of his argument, apparently having missed the many parts where Sun Tzu specifically said that it is always and without exception better to resolve a conflict or dispute by diplomacy than by combat.