Biography, it is not to be supposed that Ssu-ma Ch'ien composed this freely himself.

That was not his method. He took what material he found, used his own critical judgment, and made selections. We have seen how a part of the story, which he gives, is found in the Chan-kuo-ts'ê and in the Lü-shih-ch'un-ch'iu, and this means that it was current before 238 B.C. It may well be that a kind of romance was written round Wei Yang as has been the case with Su Ch'in and others, as Professor Maspero suggests.1 But if this was the case, the remnants, as we find them in the Shih-chi and in these two books, show none of the contradictions and impossibilities which Maspero has so clearly demonstrated in the romance of Su Ch'in.2 They do not come into conflict with the main historical facts as such, but are chiefly literary embellishments of the dramatic moments. Of one of these we can even now trace the source, for, as we shall see below,3 the discussion with Kan Lung and Tu Chih on the reform of the law is merely taken from another famous discussion, viz. from that started by King Wu-ling of Chao in 307, on the adoption of barbarian clothes. As to the long conversation between the Lord of Shang and Chao Liang, it is an excellent rhetorical composition, embodying just the kind of criticism on Wei Yang which a Confucian scholar might make.

It is therefore not necessary to reject entirely the light which this romantic account throws on the character and

1 La Chine antique, p. 404.

2 Le roman de Sou Ts'in, Etudes Asiatiques, ii, pp. 127-41.

3 Cf. p. 146.

reforms of Shang Yang. Evidently it goes back to an old tradition less than a century removed from himself; in Han Feitzu many of the same reform-measures are also ascribed to Shang Yang. A centralizing, strong, and severe government was evidently what was needed in those days of disruption and a struggle with the nobles and their privileges would be the necessary result for any statesman attempting such a policy. It is quite likely that various measures of different dates which helped to make the state of Ch'in what it later became, were all ascribed to one man, so that Shang Yang may have been credited with more statesmanship than he ever possessed. Yet we cannot disbelieve the strong and undisputed tradition, which makes him into the initiator of the strong policy which finally led to Ch'in's unparalleled

success.

For the sake of clearness I summarize here the chief of these measures Shang Yang is said to have converted Ch'in from a loose conglomerate of small feudal territories into a highly centralized administrative unity. He seems to have retrenched the privileges of the noble families, even of those of the members of the princely clan, and to have instituted a hierarchy of officials who had distinguished themselves in warfare. Severe punishments were enacted against brigands and the private fights of the semi-independent feudal cities, (and a rigid bureaucratic organization into districts was instituted. The unity of the old patriarchal family-system was attacked by discouraging people from living together, and mutual responsibility was introduced, with rewards for indictment of crime. Tilling the soil and weaving were encouraged, and measures were taken against trade. A

new system of taxes was introduced and weights and measures were standardized. A land-reform was put into force.

Whereas we shall later discuss the general ideas of law, which were in the air towards the end of the fourth century B.C., and of which Shang Yang seems to have been a practical exponent in some of these measures, it may be useful first to examine some of the social reforms which seem to require some explanation and which may throw light on the text of the Book of Lord Shang.

CHAPTER II

SHANG YANG AS SOCIAL REFORMER

§1. Shang Yang's Economics

One of the great reforms for which Shang Yang has been made responsible is that which gave China individual landtenure.

In ancient China only the nobles could hold land, either in large or small fief, or as a domain, usually connected with some office, of which they had the usufruct, and which was often, though not always, transmitted by heredity. The farmers did not possess the land which they cultivated. All the land was divided up into squares, which were subdivided into nine smaller squares, cultivated in common by a group of eight families. Eight of these fields were called “private”, that is, although the work was done together, each family was entitled to the produce of one division; the ninth, which was in the centre, called the "public field ", was cultivated entirely for the benefit of the overlord. This system is usually called the ching system, as the character ching, "well," #, written in a square,, represents very clearly the division. It seems that the area of the ching varied in different parts of the Empire. In the royal domain of Chou, viz. in the valley of the Lo River, they were 1,000 mu, each family having 100 mu for cultivation and 5 mu for house and garden. In some other parts there seem to have been 200 mu for each family lot, in others again only 70 mu

し

3

66

for each. In the state of Chin the ching seems originally to have comprised only 400 mu, but gradually this system was replaced by the simpler method of allotting 50 mu to each head of a family who had to cultivate 5 mu as tithe.1 In practice this whole system amounted, indeed, as Mencius says,2 to the paying of a tithe. Mencius draws an idyllic picture of the life of the farmer as it should be under the rule of a good king, where this system prevailed: Around the homestead, with its five mu, the space beneath the walls was planted with mulberry trees, with which the women nourished silkworms, and thus the old were able to have silk to wear. Each family had five brood hens and two brood sows, which were kept to their breeding seasons, and thus the old were able to have flesh to eat. The husbandmen cultivated their farms of 100 mu, and thus their families of eight mouths were secured against want."

But the actual condition of the farmers seems to have been far from idyllic and, in fact, to have constituted a grave problem. This is seen from an interesting calculation, which has been preserved in the chapter on Economics in

1 Cf. Maspero, op. cit., pp. 108-10. Hirth, Ancient History of China, p. 296, thinks that the ching system is a utopianism, which was never worked in practice, and modern Chinese scholars like Hu Shih (Hu Shih wen-ts'un , chap. 2, pp. 247–84) deny its real existence. With Maspero, loc. cit., I believe we have no right to do this. Cf. also Demiéville's summary of Hu Shih's ideas in B.E.F.E.O., xxiii, pp. 494-9; A. Forke, Das Chinesische Finanz- und Steuerwesen, in Mitteilungen des Seminars für Oriental. Sprachen, 1900, pp. 167, 168; O. Franke, Die Rechtsverhältnisse am Grundeigentum in China, 1903, pp. 8-13; and Chen Huanchang, The Economic Principles of Confucius and His School, 1911, pp. 497-533.

2 iiia, 3; ed. Legge, p. 117.

3 viia, 22 (2); Legge, p. 337.