In the critical note attached to the list of authors, belonging to the School of Law, it is said: "The School of Law originated with administrative officials. They made promises of rewards trustworthy and penalties definite, in order thereby to give a support to rites and institutions. The I-ching says: 'The former kings caused their laws to be followed by making punishments clear.' This is their good side. But when their doctrine was practised by cruel men, they opposed culture, they eliminated benevolence and love, they relied, solely on penalties and law, and wished in this way to bring about order, with the result that cruel harm was done to the nearest relatives, kindness was injured, and for generosity came strictness." The authors which the Han Catalogue mentions as belonging to the School of Law are the following:-Li-tzu,1 in 32 sections; the Lord of Shang, in 29 sections; Shen-tzŭ,2 in 6 sections; Ch'u-tzu,3 in 9 sections; Shen-tzu, in 42 sections; Han-tzů,5 in 55 sections; Yu Hsi-tzů, in 1 section; Ch'ao 1 Supposed to be the same as Li K'uei,, cf. p. 43. 2 Shen Pu-hai, 7, in 351 appointed minister in Han, died in 337. His works are lost. 3 處子, ·, identified by the comm. Yen Shih-ku,, with a man of Chao, mentioned by the Shih-chi; nothing further is known of him. Shen Tao, to be distinguished from Shen Pu-hai. Supposed to have lived in the fourth century. He was born in the state of Chao, but lived some time in Ch'i. Cf. Forke, op. cit., p. 442. The statement, there made, that he is mentioned by Shang Yang, is not correct. Fragments, ascribed to him, have been pieced together in the Ming dynasty and now form the book known as Shen-tzů. Ts'o,1 in 31 sections; the Ten Affairs of Yen,2 in 10 sections; the Sayings of the School of Law,3 in 2 sections. In the Catalogue of the History of the Sui dynasty only three of these authors are mentioned under the heading of the Law School, viz. Shen Tao, Han Fei-tzu, and the Lord of Shang. But another important writer is added to their number, that is Kuan-tzu, who in the Han Catalogue figured under the Taoist authors. Since then he has been counted as belonging to the School of Law; in the Great Catalogue of the Imperial Library, the Ssu-k'u-ch'üan-shu, compiled under Ch'ien Lung, he is also registered as such. There we also find counted as belonging to the Law School another philosopher, whom the Han Catalogue had listed as one of the Terminologists, viz. Têng Hsi-tzŭ.5 6 Both Kuan-tzŭ and Têng Hsi-tzu belong to China's oldest law-makers. Kuan-tzu, whose real name was Kuan Chung, with the appellation I-wu, was the minister of Duke Huan of Ch'i (685–643), and is said by his counsels to have made Ch'i the leading state of his day. Têng Hsi-tzŭ lived in Cheng,' in the second half of the sixth century B.C. He was a contemporary of another famous statesman, Tzu Ch'an,8 who is said to have composed the first penal code, which was 1 +; author unknown; Yen was a state in the region where the modern Peking is situated. The book is now lost. 3 ; authors unknown; now lost. 4 Kuan Chung,*; see below. ' A small state between the powerful countries Chin and Ch'u, in what engraved on iron tripods. Têng Hsi-tzů rewrote this code on bamboo tablets. In 501 he was executed by Tzu Ch'an's successor in the highest office.1 It would be extremely interesting if the books, which now bear the names of men who lived in such a remote period, could be accepted as genuine. Unfortunately this is not the case. The book mentioned in the Han Catalogue as Têng Hsi-tzu was probably composed in the third century B.C., and the work now extant is of doubtful authenticity.2 Nor can we trust the authority of the great work, in 24 books, known as Kuan-tzů. Opinions on the value of this book have differed widely; I believe, however, that we do not go far wrong if we date the composition of the original work in the last part of the fourth century B.C. However, the book, as it now exists, is so mixed up with later additions, that its old elements can only be recognized with great difficulty.3 It is very significant that these two last-named books were classed by the Han Catalogue as belonging respectively to the School of Terminologists and that of Taoists. For, indeed, the School of Law was not a real school in the sense that it claimed a founder, but it merely represents the outcome of various currents of thought which in their practical application stressed the importance of the Law. Its authors, therefore, 1 This version, given by the Tso-chuan, is preferable to that of Lieh-tzů who says that Têng Hsi-tzu was killed by Tzu Ch'an, because he had criticized the latter's laws. Cf. Forke, op. cit., pp. 418 sqq. 2 Cf. Forke, loc. cit., and Maspero, pp. 520, 521. It is beyond the scope of this Introduction to take up the very complicated question of the authenticity of Kuan-tzů. Cf. Maspero, op. cit., pp. 585 sqq., and id., Journal Asiatique, 1927, p. 151. For a somewhat more conservative view see Forke, op. cit., pp. 67 sqq. present certain aspects which justify their classification under other schools, especially of the two just named. Fortunately we know something of the way in which these various streams of thought met and intermingled. We are able to localize some places, where it is certain that several representatives of very different ideas have met and talked, and we obtain some curious glimpses of the environment and conditions in which these scholars lived, who, together, have done so much to form the Chinese mind. There are two centres, which, for us, are important. One was in the state of Wei, at the court of King Hui,1 a prince who had had a very chequered career. After a brilliant beginning, he had been repeatedly defeated, both by Ch'i and Ch'in; his crown prince had been made prisoner, and he had been obliged to cede to Ch'in all the territory which he possessed west of the Yellow River. In consequence he had even removed his residence eastward to what is now K'ai-feng-fu.2 Although he had adopted the royal title in 335, he had preferred in his old age to keep aloof from politics as much as he could, merely trying to keep his fallen fortunes from further ruin. Instead he showed a philosophical interest in the problem of government and encouraged scholars to come to his court, thereby perhaps hoping to obtain some glory. Here it is that we meet Mencius, in the opening paragraph of whose works is recorded a famous discussion with this king. It is said that in 333 a position at this court was offered to the great Taoist, Chuang-tzu, who, however, refused. The 3 greatest sophist of the time, Hui Shih,1 held however a position as councillor here; with Chuang-tzu he had many controversies and must have baffled the King with his curious paradoxes. His tradition was continued later, in the first part of the third century, by Kung-sun Lung,2 who startled the world by his exercises in logic, launching such statements as "a white horse is not a horse". Here 3 also came the celebrated author of a system of natural philosophy, Tsou Yen, and the famous sophist Shun-yü K'un.5 4 It is perhaps not too risky to suppose that some of the ideas of the School of Law were developed in this intellectual sphere. For it is very striking that all the books, which in the Han Catalogue are mentioned under this heading, of which we know anything at all, are ascribed to men who lived either in the three succession states of Chin, or in the neighbouring Ch'in. Li K'uei 6 had been minister to Marquis Wen of Wei (424–387), and it may well be that the book, which stands to his name, but which is probably not his own, was composed in his home country about this period. Shen Tao? ; 1 Hu Shih, Chung-kuo-chê-hsüeh-shih-ta-kang, p. 227, places him between 480 and 400 B.C., which is too early. Cf. on him and on the explanation of his paradoxes, Forke, op. cit., pp. 427-35. 2 A; cf. Forke, op. cit., pp. 436–41. 3 Maspero, op. cit., p. 397, also makes Yang Chu, the epicurean, a visitor to this Court, but cf. Forke, op. cit., p. 358, where his life is placed between 450 and 380. 4; cf. Forke, op. cit., pp. 503–6. 5 v, pp. 157-8. ; cf. Chavannes, Mém. Hist., v, pp. 246–9; also ibid., |