Shang Yang by Mai Mêng-hua1 is inserted, which praises him as being a Chinese Lycurgus or Solon. The author tries to exculpate him from the charge that he rejected all morality, and points out that as a statesman and law-giver he did very important work. Miura, in his Chung-kuo-lun-li-hsüeh-shih,2 also discusses Shang Yang; though he praises him as a capable politician, he criticizes him for his too great stress on war and agriculture, his rejection of morality and his severe punishments. Finally, Dr. Kuo-cheng Wu, while assigning to Shang Yang “a most dazzling place in the galaxy of Chinese political philosophers" because of "the originality in his thought and the practicability of his schemes ", yet renders " yet renders "a decisive verdict against Shang Yang's system ".3 All these discussions of Shang Yang and his book have, so far, been very uncritical. I have therefore found it necessary to devote a good deal of attention both to historical and to literary criticism; it is hoped that the result of these studies, while divesting Shang Yang perhaps of some of his romantic glamour, will be a contribution towards understanding the origin and development of the School of Law. Apart from the interest which they have for Sinologues, the ideas of the Chinese Legalists certainly deserve the attention also of Western Jurists. They are concerned with similar problems as have occupied the minds of Western philosophers of law, though these are approached with a different background and are seen from a different angle. History of law 麥孟華 2 (Chin. ed., 1925), pp. 172–6. 3 Ancient Chinese Political Theories (1928). will no doubt profit from a study of a development of ideas of law, which have not been affected by Greek philosophy, Roman conceptions, or Christian ideals. I have, in this book, generally refrained from making comparisons, as isolated comparisons have little value and are often misleading, and besides, not being a Jurist, it would have led too far afield. I have, however, tried to discuss the material in such a way that a Jurist will easily see the salient points. This is the first translation in any language of the Book of Lord Shang. Some summary of its contents has been given in earlier works, notably by Ivanov in the introduction to his Russian translation of Han Fei-tzů,1 and by Forke in his monumental history of ancient Chinese philosophy,2 which is an invaluable vademecum for the student of Chinese thought. While the present book was in the press, there appeared in English, Dr. Kuo-cheng Wu's work, which I have just mentioned, and which also contains a summary of the Book of Lord Shang. 3 While my translation keeps as closely as possible to the original, and tries to preserve the original character of the style, I have endeavoured not to give a dead translation, which would leave to the reader the task of finding a clue to many a sententious and enigmatic phrase. Translation is re-interpretation of thought, and should never be a mechanical rendering of words, least of all in the case of Chinese. A translation into a Western language acquires therefore more clearness and preciseness of expression than the original 1 Materialy po kitajskoj filosofii, vvedenie škola fa (1912). 3 Ancient Chinese Political Theories (1928). 66 possesses, as Chinese characters have a far wider connotation than the English words by which they are rendered, and verbs and nouns are not differentiated. The word ☎, lit. oneness", for example, in order to be clear, has had variously to be translated by "to unify, to make uniform, to concentrate, unity, uniformity, concentration, singleness of purpose", etc. The text of the Book of Lord Shang is very corrupt, and presents in many places almost insurmountable difficulties. The very best of contemporary scholars, like Wang Hsiench'ien E, Wang K'ai-yün E, Chang Ping-lin 章炳麟, Yen Fu 嚴復, K'ang Yu-wei 康有為,Liang Ch'i-ch'ao, all are said to complain of the difficulty of the Book of Lord Shang.1 I have therefore been obliged to devote more attention to matters of textual criticism than is usual in other translations from the Chinese, where the text is better established. I have been fortunate enough, through the great kindness of the wellknown historian, Mr. Ku Chieh-kang,2 to obtain the best Chinese edition of the Book, published in 1915 by Wang Shih-jun. When, during a visit to Peking in 1926, I mentioned to Mr. Ku my intention of publishing a translation of this book, that scholar drew my attention to this edition, which I had seen nowhere, and even presented me with his own copy of it. I have much pleasure in expressing my sincere gratitude to him. 3 For my study of the School of Law I have derived much 1 Cf. Wang Shih-jun (see infra), p. 1 of his Introduction. 2 顧頡剛 3 Cf. p. 139. benefit from Liang Ch'i-ch'ao's publications on the subject, viz. his Chung-kuo-fa-li-hsieh-fa-ta-shih-lun 1 and his Hsiench'in-cheng-chih-ssu-hsiang-shih.2 A French translation of that part of the latter book, which deals with the Law School, reached me while the present work was being prepared. I am indebted to Mr. Yen Fu-ch'ing for his assistance in various matters, especially for his help in preparing the Chinese index. 5 1 1✈✈ published in Yin-ping-shih ts'ung-chu, ii, pp. 1–91. 先秦政治思想史(1923). La conception de la loi et les théories des légistes à la veille des Ts'in, par J. Escarra et R. Germain (Pékin, 1926). For further literature on the Law School, cf. the note on p. xxi of that work. * 嚴輔清 5 References to ancient Chinese books, throughout this work, are to the following editions: Shih-chi; Nanking ed., 1878. Ch'ien-han-shu; idem. Chan-kuo-ts'ê; ed. of 1581, based on that of Wu Shih-tao (A.D. 1333). Chou-li; ed. of 1639. Li-chi; ed. Couvreur, 1899. Shih-ching; ed. Legge, The Chinese Classics, iv, 1871. Mencius; idem, ii, 1861. Lun-yü; idem, i, 1861. Han Fei-tzů; ed. #, Shanghai, 1925. Kuan-tzů; ed., Shanghai, 1924. Lü-shih-ch’un-ch’iu; ed.} } # j, 1875. Huai Nan-tzu; idem, 1876. |