IV

The present translation is throughout my own, in both method and substance, although I have used for reference certain partial translations and sketchy quotations in English and other Western languages. My special differences from them are found in the notes and from time to time discussed in the companion volume.

The first ambitious attempt at translating Han Fei Tzŭ into a Western language appeared in Russian (1912) by Ivanov. The work was a partial translation. To my regret, I am unable to read it and appreciate the translator's mastery of the Chinese original. Nevertheless, Paul Pelliot's review of the work in the Journal Asiatique (Septembre-Octobre, 1913) has afforded me a vivid glimpse of the whole accomplishment. According to Pelliot, "Confusion de noms, prononciations inacceptables, références insuffisantes, dates donnée d'après les commentateurs chinois sans équivalents européens, ce sont là autant de défauts auxquels un peu d'effort eût aisément remédié" (pp. 422-3). "Je ne puis me défendre," continues Pelliot further, "quoique à regret, de dire que la sinologie attend de M. Ivanov autre chose. Son livre serait très honorable pour un amateur qui, loin de toute bibliothèque, voudrait donner à des compatriotes un aperçu d'un système chinois. Mais M. Ivanov est un technicien. . . ." (p. 423). In short, the translation presents "un première ébauche" of Han Fei Tzŭ's thought but can hardly acquaint the reader with its substance.

InThe Development of the Logical Method in Ancient China which appeared in 1917, Hu Shih rendered into English all his citations from the works of Han Fei Tzŭ. On the whole, his translations were proficient in composition as well as faithful to the author's ideas; but, in most cases, he employed modern idiomatic English at the expense of the original style.

Alfred Forke's translation of the passages he quoted from Han Fei Tzŭin hisGeschichte der Alten Chinesischen Philosophie (1927) is an excellent reinterpretation of the author's ideas in the German language. On certain points, however, I have had to disagree with his rendering. It is very evident that if he never misread the Chinese original, he must have used the text of an edition quite different from the one I have used.

Kn the same year, 1927, appeared Henri Maspero'sLa Chine antique which contains a concise summary of Han Fei Tzŭ's teachings. Therein are found very accurate translations of a few passages, which I have read with great appreciation.

K. C. Wu'sAncient Chinese Political Theories (1928) also contains one chapter on Han Fei Tzŭ, in which a number of passages were rendered into English. His translations on the whole appear more suggestive than accurate.

Dr. J. J. L. Duyvendak, in the introduction to his English translation ofThe Book of Lord Shang (1928), also translated some fragmentary passages from Han Fei Tzŭ. Though he attempted in this scholarly work to be as accurate as possible, yet by his style of writing an average reader can hardly know whether he intended to preserve the original character of the text or to assimilate the manner of idiomatic English.

Kn 1930, came out L. T. Chen's English translation of Liang Ch`i-ch`ao'sHistory of Chinese Political Thought during the Early Tsin Period. Herein his translation of passages from Han Fei Tzŭjust as that of Liang's whole book abounds with omissions, inaccuracies, and mis-statements. Throughout the book, crucial points purposely brought to the fore by the author, which would be interesting to Western scholars, were omitted, whether by mistake or by intention, while annotations and elucidations which would make every reader appreciate the text with a new spirit were rarely or never made. Nevertheless, if it is not just to blame an amateur for his unpresentable work, it is certainly not unjust to suggest that he should ask accomplished scholars to revise it.

Last year appeared Derk Bodde's English rendering of Fung Yu-lan'sHistory of Chinese Philosophy: The Period of the Philosophers, whose manuscript the author is alleged to have read and approved. It is a well-earned accomplishment. However, if an extensive surveyor of philosophical ideas is liable to superficiality and equivocation, how much more would his translator be? As far as Bodde's translation of passages from Han Fei Tzŭis concerned, it is very likely that after an intensive study of Han Fei Tzŭ's thought he will have to reconsider his rendering of the important legalist terms shih as "power" or "authority" and shu as "method" or "statecraft". Nevertheless, if theBrief History of Early Chinese Philosophy (1914) by Dr. T. Suzuki presents English readers a sketch of ancient Chinese thought, Bodde's English rendering of Fung's work certainly expands an elaborate panorama before them. In this connection I am projecting a ray of hope that some day when aHistory of Chinese Philosophy by some other Chinese scholar appears comparable to Windelband'sGeschichte der Philosophie, there will be some other sinologue in the English-speaking countries attempting to make his translation of the work from the Chinese as exquisite as Tufts' translation of Windelband's work from the German.