In Zheng it was the custom for people to hang criticisms of the laws from the walls. When Prince Chan ordered that no more be hung, Deng Xi added his own construction of the meaning of the laws. When Prince Chan ordered that no such constructions be added, Deng Xi found yet other devious ways of twisting the meaning of the laws. To whatever orders the Prince issued, Deng Xi had a ready response. His actions obliterated the distinction between what was permissible and what was not.
When these cannot be properly distinguished and one makes use of rewards and punishments, the more extreme the punishments become, the graver the anarchy that results. This is precisely what those governing a state should forbid.
Annals of Lü Buwei, 18/4.2

Deng Xi knows how to interpret the law in such a way as to render it null and void. Does this mean the legislator who drafted the law was careless?
That would probably be an anachronistic conclusion. A more stimulating one would be to realize that Deng Xi « discovered interpretation », an epochal moment not only in the construction of law but also in linguistics and philosophy.

While it is probably unrealistic to expect laws to be unambiguous, we must at least anticipate and manage future probable interpretations. In other words, we should make the work of contemporary Deng Xis more complex. See « The Letter and Spirit of the Law. »
What the Hegemon dictates may be self-evident to the Hegemon but not to everyone else. Deng Xi was executed for his insolence.

The following text is extracted from « Paragraph 1”, that is, chapter one of The Book of Lord Shang, translated by J.J.-L. Duyvendak.
Duyvendak notes that this section is « A piece of pure literature. It has no connection with the rest of the book and merely serves as an introduction.” (p. 81).

“Lord Shang », or « Lord Shang Yang » is the honorific title given to Yang Kung-sun

Lord Shang, c. 390 – c. 338 bc, The Book of Lord Shang

Duke Hsiao discussed his policy. The three Great Officers, Kung-sun Yang, Kan Lung and Tu Chih, were in attendance on the Prince. Their thoughts dwelt on the vissicitudes of the world affairs; they discussed the principles of rectifying the law, and they sought for the way of directing the people. The prince said:

— Not to forget, at his succession, the tutelary spirits of the soil and of grain, is the way of a Prince; to shape the law and to see to it that an intelligent ruler reigns, are the tasks of a minister. I intend, now, to alter the law, so as to obtain orderly government and to refor the rites, so as to teach the people; but I am afraid that the empire will criticize me.

Kung-sun Yang said:

— I have heard it said that he who hesitates in action, does not accomplish anything, and that he who hesitates in affairs, gains no merit. Let Your Highness settle your thoughts quickly about altering the laws and perhaps not heed the criticism of the empire.
Moreover, he who conducts himself as an outstanding man is, as a matter of course disapproved of by the world. […]

Duke Hsiao expressed his approval, but Kan Lung said:

— Not so. I have heard it said: « A sage teaches without changing the people, and a wise man obtains good governement without altering the laws. »  […]

Kung Sun Yang replied:

— What you, sir, hold is the point of view of the man-in-the-street. Indeed, ordinary people abide by old practices, and students are immersed in the study of what is reported from antiquity. These two kinds of men are all right for filling offices and for maintaining the law, but they are not the kind who can take part in a discussion which goes beyond the law […]

Tu Chih said:

— Unless the advantage be a hundredfold, one should not reform the law; unless the benefit be tenfold, one should not alter an instrument. I have heard it said that taking antiquity as an example one makes no mistakes, and in following established rites, one commits no offence. Let your highness aim at that.

Kung Sun Yang said:

— Former generations did not follow the same doctrines, so what antiquity should one imitate? The emperors and kings dod not copy one another, so what rites should one follow? […]

Duke Hsiao said:

— Excellent! […]

(*) The Book of Lord Chang, Shāng jūn shū. Translated by J. J.-L. Duyvendak (1889-1954). London, Arthur Probsthain, 1928. Reprint by Chinese Materials Center, San Francisco 1974.

Transcription

Pinyin transcription is the official modern transcription of standard Chinese using the letters of the Latin alphabet (CK). Introduced in China in 1958.

Other transcription systems:
— Wade – Giles system, most used in the English-speaking world before the introduction of the pinyin system.
— EFEO system, from the École française d’Extrême-Orient (EFEO), designed by Séraphin Couvreur in 1902 used in French, before the introduction of the pinyin system. 
— Latin transcription

Other transcription systems can be found in the texts; quotations respect the author’s choice.

Dates and Periods

Date during the Common Era or Christian Era, CE: 512 = 512 CE
Date before the Common Era, BCE: 512 BCE

Periods start and end dates:
—— 512 BCE – 480 BCE 
—— 512 BCE – 215CE
—— 512 CE – 623 CE = 512 – 623

Hypothetical dates are noted « c. » or a « ca.« , abbreviations of the Latin word « circa » « around, approximately »:
c. 512BCE – c.215BCE.
c. 513 BCE
c. 513CE = c. 513ce

Period from 600 bce to 200 bce

The scale of time (600bce-200bce)  is highlighted in yellow
Highlighted in pink: the period of the Warring States
Highlighted in black: Qín Shihuang(di), Emperor of unified China
Highlighted in blue: Beginning of the Han dynasty

This tentative work is dedicated to Professor Shier Ju of the Institute of Logic and Cognition at Sun Yat-sen University in Guangzhou, who invited me to deliver a seminar at the institute in 2019.
During the seminar, I noticed that Chinese researchers had no difficulty commenting and using Western models and concepts to analyse translated Chinese data.
This inspired me to follow their example, hence the provisional observations I propose herein.

PARALLEL CASES

Han Fei Tzi, Section 17, “Precautions within the palace.”

Whether one is ruler of a state of ten thousand chariots or of one thousand only, it is quite likely tha this consort, his concubines, or the son he has designated as heir to his throne will wish for his early death.

How do I know this is so? A wife is not bound to her husband by any ties of blood,If she loves her, she remains close to him; if not, she becomes estranged. The saying goes: « If the mother is favored, the son will be embraced. » But if this is then the opposite must be,  must run like this: « If the mother is despised, the son will be cast away.« A man at fifty has not yet lost interest in sex, and yet at thirty a women’s beauty has already faded. If a woman whose beauty has already faded waits upon a man still occupied by thoughts of sex, then she will be spurned and disfavored, and her son will stand little chance of suceeding to the throne. This is why consorts and concubines long for the early death of the ruler.

Han Fei Tzi, Section 17, “Precautions within the palace”, in Basic Wrirings. Translated by Burton Watson. New York & London, Columbia University Press, 1964

So-called Western argumentative practices have been present in written texts since the dawn of Greek and Latin civilizations.
The first theorizations of these practices correspond to the birth and development of Greek rhetoric and logic.

Translations from Latin and Greek
The teaching of Latin and Greek is an integral part of Western culture. The Latin and Greek texts have been extensively translated and continue to influence Western thought through a long tradition of commentary and translation reworking.
Within this tradition, certain translations are considered landmarks, such as the Latin translations of Aristotle by William of Moerbeke,

These versions are so faithful to Aristotle’s text that they are authorities on the corrections of the Greek manuscripts, and they enabled Thomas Aquinas to become a supreme interpreter of Aristotle without knowing Greek.
Allan Bloom, « Preface » to his translation of Plato’s Republic, 1968, p. xi.

This collection is about TRANSLATED Chinese classical texts
Without systematically aspiring to such heights, the interested reader can easily obtain reliable translations of many classical Chinese texts.  The price to pay is that this illiterate reader cannot study « argument in Chinese (classical texts) », « such and such an argument in the Analects of Confucius« , but only « such and such an argument in such and such a translation in the Analects of Confucius« .

In the case of major works, several translations of the same text are available, which makes it possible to to identify their differences and similarities, if necessary. In this case, one should consider that the different translations of the same passage express different readings of the same way of reasoning.

Sometimes, the translation(s) of the passages remain unclear or incompatible. In this case, comments can be left for a better future and for better readers. After all, this is also the case for texts in the analyst’s own language and culture.

From the Annals of Lü Buwei

18/4.4 — When Prince Chan governed Zheng, Deng Xi strove to disrupt things. He made a pact with those involved in litigation by which those who intended to pursue major legal cases should submit an upper garment, and those who wished to pursue minor legal cases should submit a short coat and lower garment. Those who submitted these garments and involved themselves in litigation were too numerous to count.

Thus, wrong was taken to be right, and right was taken to be wrong. With no standard of what was right and wrong, what was permissible and impermissible varied each day. Those whom Deng Xi wished to win in litigation did win, and those whom Deng Xi wished to punish were punished.

The state of Zheng fell into complete chaos, and the populace clamored. Prince Chan, troubled by this turn of events, had Deng Xi executed and his corpse exposed. The peopled hearts were then stilled, right and wrong were settled, and the laws and regulations enforced.

Deng Xi administers justice. According to the accusation, he set the price for judgments handed down in favor of cases, large or small.
Considering Deng Xi expertise in interpretating the law, one could suppose that he found and applied an interpretation of the law that exonerated his clients.
If so, he simply did what a lawyer is supposed to do and paid for. The problem is that judge and advocate are one and the same person.

18/5.2

The Annals of Lu Buwei
18, 5/2 – At the meeting at Kongxiong, Qin and Zhao joined together in a treaty, which said, “From this time forward, Zhao will support Qin in whatever Qin desires to do, and Qin will support Zhao in whatever Zhao desires to do.” Shortly thereafter Qin raised an army to attack Wei and Zhao wished to rescue the latter. The king of Qin was displeased and sent a man to reprimand the king o f Zhao. “Our treaty says, ’Zhao will support Q in in whatever Q in desires to do, and Q in will support Zhao in whatever Zhao desires to do. Qin now desires to attack Wei, and Zhao on account of this wishes to assist Wei. This is contrary to our treaty.”

The king of Zhao reported this to the Lord of Pingyuan, who told Gongsun Long. Gongsun Long said, “You too may send out an emissary to reprimand the king of Qin, saying, ‘It is Zhao’s desire to assist Wei, but now the King of Qin alone refuses to support Zhao. This is contrary to our treaty.”

Gongsun Long rétorque exactement le même reproche.
Il va falloir s’appesantir un peu sur les détails de rédaction du traité. Un point singulier qui neutralise le traité, comme Deng Xi neutralise la loi.
Les deux arguments sont strictements équivalents  les deux parties sont à égalité stricte.
(isosthénie). Blocage.
Il va falloir s’appesantir un peu sur les détails de rédaction du traité. Un point singulier qui neutralise le traité, comme Deng Xi neutralise la loi.

The a fortiori argument scheme is a clear example of a cross-cultural interpretive – argumentative rule.

Greco-Latin Tradition

In the Greco-Latin tradition all collections of argument schemes throughout the history of Western argumentation mention the a fortiori rule. Aristotle illustrates this rule via the following examples:

If even the gods are not omniscient, then certainly human beings are certainly not.
(Rhet, II, 23, 1397b15, RR, p. 359)
A man who strikes his father also strikes his neighbors […] for a man is less likely to strike his father than to strike his neighbors (ibid.).

The second argument can be used in the following situation. Somebody was assaulted. Who is guilty? We know that someone in the victim’s neighborhood committed violence against his own father. The a fortiori argument casts suspicion upon the person who has already committed more severely prohibited forms of violence. The conclusion is that the police should question him.

Muslim Legal Argumentation

In Muslim legal argumentation, the bi-l-awla argument corresponds exactly to the a fortiori argument. The issue is addressed in the Quran (Surah 17, verse 24), dealing with the respect that a child owes to his parents:

Do not make “pfff!” to them!

The prohibition refers to a minimal impolite retort of a child shrugging off or reluctantly obeying the words of his parents, puffing out a sigh of exaspera­tion. The a fortiori principle extends this prohibition to all disrespectful behavior: “since it is forbidden even to say “pfff!” to one’s parents, it is all the more forbid­den to say harsh words to them, bully or hit them”.
The prohibition takes its support on the lowest point on the scale, the epsilon of disrespect. Commentators have noted that an a fortiori argument can be a form of semantic deduction (Khallâf [1942], p. 216).

Talmudic Exegesis

The rules of Talmudic exegesis have been established by various authors following Hillel (1^st century CE). The entry “Hermeneutics” in the Encyclopædia Judaïca, enumerates the thirteen interpretive rules of Rabbi Ishmael.
The first rule is qal va-homer, “how much more”, which goes from the “minor” (qal) to the “major” (homer) a fortiori. (Jacobs & Derovan 2007, p. 25).

This rule helps to determine what is lawful and what is not, for example it establishes the conditions under which the Easter sacrifice, Pesach, should be offered. The Bible asks that Pesach be offered at Easter. Some actions are forbidden on the Sabbath, so what is one to do when Pesach coincides with the Sabbath? The calculation a fortiori gives the answer: the Olat Tamid sacrifice (“daily burnt-offering” [1]) is offered daily, including on the Shabbat. Pesach is more important than Tamid (proof: if one does not respect Tamid, one does not incur penalties; if one does not respect Pesach, the sanctions are severe). Since not cele­brating Pesach is more serious than not cele­brating Tamid, and Tamid is lawful when Easter falls on the day of Shabbat, it is therefore a fortiori lawful to sacrifice Pesach when Easter falls on Sabbath.
The reasoning can be expressed as a rhetorical syllogism:

Problem: the Pesach sacrifice must be offered on Passover.
Some actions are forbidden on Shabbat
Question: What should we do when Passover coincides with Shabbat?

Data: We know that 1) the Tamid offering must be celebrated on Shabbat, and 2) Not celebrating Pesach is worse than not celebrating the Tamid offering.
Argumentation: Topos of the opposites on (2):
Celebrating Pesach is more important than celebrating Tamid.
This, combined with (1), leads to the conclusion:

Conclusion: Pesach can be celebrated when Easter coincides with Shabbat.

Chinese Tradition

Confucius, The Analects. Bk 11, §12. Trans. Robert Eno [3]

Ji Lu asked about serving the spirits. The Master said, “While you are yet not able to serve men, how could you be able to serve the spirits?”
“May I ask about death?”
“When you do not yet understand life, how could you understand death?”

Han Fei Tzu, “Precautions within the palace”.  Trans. Burton Watson [4]

Thus, the actor Shih aided Lady Li to bring about the death of Shen-sheng and to set Hsi-ch’i on the throne.¹ Now, if someone as close to the ruler as his own consort, and as dear to him as his own son, still cannot be trusted, then obviously no one else is to be trusted either.
¹ Lady Li and Hsi-ch’i “forced Shen-sheng to commit suicide in 656 BC”. “Hsi-ch’i (…) succeeded to the throne in 651 BC” (Burton Watson’s note to the text)

UNIVERSAL PERSPECTIVE

A fortiori can therefore be considered a good candidate for universality. This is not surprising, since it is based on scalarity and comparison, which are found in all languages.

See A fortiori, Comparison, Argument scales – Laws of discourse,

This example is taken from Mengzi’s (Mencius, Meng Ke) discussion with Gaozi (Kao Tzu) [1] as reported in Mengzi’s text.
The discussion focuses on two fundamental concepts of Confucianism: human nature and righteousness. Gaozi attempts to clarify these concepts by drawing an analogy with the willow tree, which is used to make cups and bowls. Mencius strongly rejects this analogy, which he considers inadequate.
For our current purposes we will limit ourselves to two translations, those of Robert Eno and Dim Cheuk Lau, namely Mencius_Eno and Mencius_Lau (our presentation and numbering).

This is clearly a dialectical exchange between two philosophers. Gaozi puts forward an analogy, made explicit by the construction ‘A is like B‘, to illustrate his conception of human nature.
Both translations use the same expression, ‘human nature’ (1a), to refer to the topic of the debate. The problem posed by Gaozi concerns the emergence of a complex capacity, which is referred to using the following terms (the ‘>’ sign indicates that these terms are part of a chain corresponding to the same object of discourse): [4]

This is clearly a dialectical exchange between two philosophers. Gaozi puts forward an analogy, made explicit by the construction ‘A is like B’, to illustrate his conception of human nature.
Both translations use the same expression, ‘human nature’ (1a), to refer to the topic of the debate. The problem discussed by Gaozi concerns the emergence of a complex capacity, which is referred to using the following terms. The ‘>‘ sign indicates that these terms are part of a chain corresponding to the same object of discourse [5])

Les deux traductions utilisent la même expression, human nature (1a) pour désigner le thème général du débat. Le problème posé par Gaozi concerne l’émergence d’une capacité complexe désignée par les termes suivants. [4] e signe “>” indique que les termes entrent dans la chaîne dont l’ensemble correspond à un même objet de discours),[2]

Mencius does not comment on the concept under discussion, but only on the analogy used by Gaozi. He develops the analogy by focusing on the nature of the transformation undergone by the willow to become a bowl and cup

To describe this process, Gaozi uses the abstract predicate ‘making C from/out of W’, which has no definite argumentative orientation, in both translations. The text continues with a question from Mencius.

In both translations, Mencius essentially adopts the willow’s point of view. Mencius_Lau uses the word ‘mutilate’, which has a negative connotation. The expression ‘mutilating the willow to make a bowl and a cup‘ thus highlights the negative nature of the transformation undergone by the willow. This completely changes the perspective on the operation.
With ‘hack’, Mengzi_Eno adds the sensation of a sharp instrument, which is perfectly consistent with the idea of mutilation: ‘hack W into C‘.
Based on the analogy proposed by Gaozi himself, Mengzi_Eno transfers the operation to humans (a process marked by ‘then‘ in Mencius_Lau).

We conclude that both translations clearly develop an argument by analogy, which is rejected by the opponent who finds fault with the analogy by pointing out a flaw in its structure.
Consequently, this case can be used for all practical purposes in argumentation, under either translation.
The only reservation concerns the status of the concepts on which the analogy is based (righteousness, dutifulness, humanity and morality), which are beyond the scope of this discussion.

[1] Mengzi_Eno and Mencius_Lau refer respectively to Eno’s and Lau’s translation of Mengzi’s work.
Mengzi is the pinyin transcription of the author’s name, Latinized as Mencius (-372, – 289).
Mencius = Mengzi = Meng Ke (-372, – 289).
Gaozi = Kao-tzu = Gao Buhai), circa 420-350 BCE.
More information in Wikipedia.

[2] For the concepts of discourse object and schematization used here, see Plantin Chr., Dictionary of argumentation.

diverging