Han Feizi and the Old Master: A Comparative Analysis and Translation of Han Feizi Chapter 20, “Jie Lao,” and Chapter 21, “Yu Lao”

Abstract

Among the writings in the Han Feizi that have been debated most tenaciously without resolution are two chapters that contain the earliest known commentaries to what was to become the Laozi: Chapter 20, “Explicating Lao” (“Jie Lao” 解老), and Chapter 21, “Illustrating Lao” (“Yu Lao” 諭老). Both Lundahl and Zheng Liangshu have briefly reviewed the general structure and content of these two commentaries and the debates concerning their authorship and dating, yet the debate rages on. At the heart of the debate lies the question of Han Fei’s relationship with a tradition, which by the early years of the Han, was to become associated with the shadowy figure of Laozi or the Old Master. Many questions remain unanswered: Why are these commentaries preserved in the Han Feizi? How do they comport with the rest of that work? When and by whom were they written? What do they identify as the principal ideas of what was to become the Laozi and why? The answers hold vital keys for understanding not only the nature of Han Fei’s thought but also the history of the Laozi itself. Though a definitive answer to these questions is well beyond the scope of this chapter, this preliminary investigation will outline the salient characteristics of each commentary. This chapter will suggest that the commentaries differ markedly in (1) the exegetical strategies they adopt, (2) the passages they cite, (3) the citation styles they employ, (4) the manner in which they cite particular passages, (5) the markers of date they possess, (6) the viewpoints they exhibit and (7) the vocabulary they employ to express their respective viewpoints. Moreover, and most intriguingly, they appear to draw upon two different versions of proto-Laozi collections, by which I mean sayings that would later become associated with the Laozi, but which at the time these commentaries were written did not yet carry such a title. The implications of these differences, particularly as they concern the authenticity debate, will be discussed in the conclusion to this chapter.