Frontmatter

Table of Contents

韓非子 \ Hanfeizi \ The Works of Han Feizi

Preface by the Translator
Methodological Introduction by the Translator
The Biography of Han Fei Tzŭ By Ssŭ-ma Ch`ien
Preface to "The Complete Works of Han Fei Tzŭ with Collected Commentaries"
Foreword to "The Complete Works of Han Fei Tzŭ with Collected Commentaries"

1 初見秦第一 \ Chapter I. The First Interview with the King of Ch'in: A Memorial
2 存韓第二 \ Chapter II. On the Preservation of Han: Issue Between Han Fei and Li Ssŭ
3 難言第三 \ Chapter III. On the Difficulty in Speaking: A Memorial
4 愛臣第四 \ Chapter IV. On Favourite Vassals: A Memorial
5 主道第五 \ Chapter V. The Tao of the Sovereign
6 有度第六 \ Chapter VI. Having Regulations: A Memorial
7 二柄第七 \ Chapter VII. The Two Handles
8 揚權第八 \ Chapter VIII. Wielding the Sceptre
9 八姦第九 \ Chapter IX. Eight Villainies
10 十過第十 \ Chapter X. Ten Faults
11 孤憤第十一 \ Chapter XI. Solitary Indignation
12 說難第十二 \ Chapter XII. Difficulties in the Way of Persuation
13 和氏第十三 \ Chapter XIII. The Difficulty of Pien Ho
14 姦劫弒臣第十四 \ Chapter XIV. Ministers Apt to Betray, Molest, or Murder the Ruler
15 亡徵第十五 \ Chapter XV. Portents of Ruin
16 三守第十六 \ Chapter XVI. Three Precautions
17 備內第十七 \ Chapter XVII. Guarding Against the Interior
18 南面第十八 \ Chapter XVIII. Facing the South
19 飾邪第十九 \ Chapter XIX. On Pretentions and Heresies: A Memorial
20 解老第二十 \ Chapter XX. Commentaries on Lao Tzŭ's Teachings
21 喻老第二十一 \ Chapter XXI. Illustrations of Lao Tzŭ's Teachings
22 說林第二十二 \ Chapter XXII. Collected Persuasions, The Upper Series
23 說林下第二十三 \ Chapter XXIII. Collected Persuasions, The Lower Series
24 觀行第二十四 \ Chapter XXIV. Observing Deeds
25 安危第二十五 \ Chapter XXV. Safety and Danger
26 守道第二十六 \ Chapter XXVI. The Way to Maintain the State
27 用人第二十七 \ Chapter XXVII. How to Use Men: Problems of Personnel Administration
28 功名第二十八 \ Chapter XXVIII. Achievement and Reputation
29 大體第二十九 \ Chapter XXIX. The Principal Features of Legalism
30 內儲說上七術第三十 \ Chapter XXX. Inner Congeries of Sayings, The Upper Series: Seven Tacts
31 內儲說下六微第三十一 \ Chapter XXXI. Inner Congeries of Sayings, The Lower Series: Six Minutiae
32 外儲說左上第三十二 \ Chapter XXXII. Outer Congeries of Sayings, The Upper Left Series
33 外儲說左下第三十三 \ Chapter XXXIII. Outer Congeries of Sayings, The Lower Left Series
34 外儲說右上第三十四 \ Chapter XXXIV. Outer Songeries of Sayings, The Upper Right Series
35 外儲說右〔下〕第三十五 \ Chapter XXXV. Outer Congeries of Sayings, The Lower Right Series
36 難一第三十六 \ Chapter XXXVI. Criticisms of The Ancients, Series One
37 難二第三十七 \ Chapter XXXVII. Criticisms of the Ancients, Series Two
38 難三第三十八 \ Chapter XXXVIII. Criticism of the Ancients, Series Three
39 難四第三十九 \ Chapter XXXIX. Criticisms of the Ancients, Series Four
40 難勢第四十 \ Chapter XL. A Critique of the Doctrine of Position
41 問辯第四十一 \ Chapter XLI. Inquiring into the Origin of Dialectic
42 問田第四十二 \ Chapter XLII. Asking T'ien: Two Dialogues
43 定法第四十三 \ Chapter XLIII. Deciding Between Two Legalistic Doctrines
44 說疑第四十四 \ Chapter XLIV. On Assumers
45 詭使第四十五 \ Chapter XLV. Absurd Encouragements
46 六反第四十六 \ Chapter XLVI. Six Contrarieties
47 八說第四十七 \ Chapter XLVII. Eight Fallacies
48 八經第四十八 \ Chapter XLVIII. Eight Canons
49 五蠹第四十九 \ Chapter XLIX. Five Vermin: A Pathological Analysis of Politics
50 顯學第五十 \ Chapter L. Learned Celebrities: A Critical Estimate of Confucians and Mohists
51 忠孝第五十一 \ Chapter LI. Loyalty and Filial Piety: A Memorial
52 人主第五十二 \ Chapter LII. The Lord of Men
53 飭令第五十三 \ Chapter LIII. Making Orders Trim
54 心度第五十四 \ Chapter LIV. Surmising the Mentality of the People: A Psychological Analysis of Politics
55 制分第五十五 \ Chapter LV. Regulations and Distinctions

Preface by the Translator

The present work is the first translation of the complete writings of Han Fei Tzŭinto a Western language. It is based on the best Chinese text and commentaries, Wang Hsien-shen'sThe Complete Works of Han Fei Tzŭ with Collected Commentaries (1896), Kao Hêng'sSupplementary Commentaries on Han Fei Tzŭ's Works (1933), and Yung Chao-tsu'sTextual Criticisms of Han Fei Tzŭ's Works (1936), with two most recent explicative editions of the text with Japanese translations and notes, one by Tokan Hirazawa (1931) and another by the Waseda University Press (1932-3), as reference.

Wang Hsien-shen completed his monumental work in 1895. Its block-printed copies did not come off the press in Changsha, the great scholar's native city, till over one year later. Though the text is not punctuated like all the texts of other Chinese classics, I have found no misprint. Nowadays it is apparently out of print, while rare copies may be still procurable in big libraries and old book stores. The reprint of Wang's work by the Commercial Press, Shanghai, with movable types, contains not more than a dozen of misprints in the whole book. Yet it is regrettable that the marks of punctuation, which they added with a view to increasing the intelligibility of the text, abound with misleading errors. Kao Hêng's work, which appeared in Nos. 3 and 4 in Vol. II of theWuhan University Quarterly Journal of Liberal Arts, reveals his scholarly thoroughness and constitutes an original contribution to the existing knowledge of Han Fei Tzŭ's text. Yung Chao-tsu's work, in the main, represents a systematic synthesis of the textual criticisms of Han Fei Tzŭ's works by his predecessors and himself. The two Japanese editions and translations are not free from a number of errors and misprints, but the exegetical remarks and the explanatory notes added by the translators are exceedingly valuable. By collating these works carefully, I have hoped that the textual basis of my English rendering can be a co-ordination of the best and newest scholarly efforts on the Chinese original. However, my translation probably involves incorrect or inaccurate points, wherefore any suggestion for emendations or elucidations made by the reader will be most welcome.

As it is necessary in the translation to acquaint the reader with the author's life and times as well as the history of the text in the original, I have prefixed to the author's WorksThe Biography of Han Fei Tzŭ, by Ssŭ-ma Ch`ien, Wang Hsien-ch`ien'sPreface to "The Complete Works of Han Fei Tzŭwith Collected Commentaries", and Wang Hsien-shen's ownForeword to "The Complete Works of Han Fei Tzŭ with Collected Commentaries", which altogether can make a general introduction, brief but clear. My methodological introduction is meant to clarify the main problems, principles, and methods of translation.

In the completion of this work, I should acknowledge my thanks to Dr. M. S. Bates and Mr. Li Siao-yen for the criticisms and suggestions they have given me on all available occasions, and to the Libraries of the University of Nanking, the Institute of Chinese Cultural Studies, and the University of Hong Kong for the facilities they have afforded me, as well as to Dr. Neville Whymant, formerly of the London School of Oriental Studies, for helpful comments, and Mr. Arthur Probsthain for his congenial interest in promoting the present work and enabling its publication to materialize. I am also indebted to my wife who has carefully gone over the whole translation and inspired my perseverance in many painstaking efforts which the author since centuries ago has imposed upon anybody attempting to translate his writings into any alien tongue.

W. K. Liao.

Hong Kong,

April, 1939.

Methodological Introduction by the Translator

I

The need and value of translation, indeed, appears whenever there is an inter-cultural contact. So did it appear when Buddhism, along with Hindu culture, was coming to China, and such was the case during the Græco-Roman days. Cicero was puzzled by the problems of translation, and many a scholar has ever since attempted to solve the same problems. Confronted by the same, if not greater, difficulties, the present translator hopes that a few remarks here on matters of translation may not be out of place.

As the Chinese language is far more concise and less precise than English, writers of both languages, though able to write lucidly in either tongue, are somehow or other at a loss when asked, How should each be rendered into the other? In this connection it is well remarked by Dr. Duyvendak in the Preface to his own translation ofThe Book of Lord Shang, that "a translation is a re-interpretation of thought, and should never be a mechanical rendering of words, least of all in the case of Chinese". Then, what ought to be the right methods to attain that object, and how was The Book of Lord Shang translated? To such natural questions Duyvendak did not expound his answers, but only added that "a translation into a Western language acquires therefore more clearness and preciseness of expression than the original 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 first great achievement in the study of the problems, principles, and methods of translation was in 1790 when A. F. Tytler read before the Royal Society his papers on Translation, which were soon afterwards published. Thus in hisPrinciples of Translation he prescribed three golden rules:—

I. A translation should give a complete transcript of the ideas of the original work.

II. The style and manner of writing in a translation should be of the same character as that of the original.

III. A translation should have the ease of the original composition.

The serviceability of these as guiding principles to subsequent scholars and the difficulties for every translator to reach such levels are beyond any doubt. Nevertheless, in correspondence to them, there were preached and practised by Yen Fu (1866-1921) three famous principles, Faithfulness, Elegance, and Proficiency, throughout his translations of English books into Chinese. So far in the art of translating English into Chinese, he has excelled everybody and has been surpassed by none.

An account of both technical requirements and etymological differences, it goes without saying that every translator of Chinese into English has to fight his way through all hardships. Thus, either because Chinese is more concise, or because it is less precise than English, I have found, above everything else, the necessity of using the liberty of making additions and omissions within certain limits. For instance, in many cases I have added to the ideas of the original such words as would help the reader grasp their meanings in so far as the superadded thought has the most necessary connection with the original and actually increases its intelligibility, not to speak of my additions of articles and specifications of tense, mood, case, number, and gender. Naturally, here and there throughout the translation I have interposed not only single words but also phrases, and sometimes even clauses.

Again, I have endeavoured to assimilate the style and manner of writing in the translation to that of the original. Take for example parallelism, which is a peculiar characteristic of the style and manner of Chinese writing. For illustration, Han Fei Tzŭsaid, "the literati by means of letters disturb laws; the cavaliers by means of weapons transgress prohibitions." To preserve the native colour in cases like this, I have kept repetitions in wording and balances in expression close to the original, provided they do not appear tiresome; otherwise, I have shortened them. On the contrary, the Chinese language very often admits of such brevity of expression as can not be successfully imitated in the English; wherefore to achieve perfect transfusion of the sense in such cases, I have found it necessary to sacrifice the imitation of style. On significant occasions, however, even matters of rhyme and rhythm have been taken into consideration.

As regards idioms, there are a number in the original to which I have found no corresponding idiom in English. In case a literal translation appears to be confusing, the sense is expressed in plain and easy English. Likewise, whenever the English way of expression is more concise in wording and elegant in style and less monotonous and less complicated in structure than the Chinese way, then the native colour is sacrificed with no regret. But wherever it is tolerable, there is made a literal rendering. Such Chinese idioms as "All-under-Heaven", "the Son of Heaven," "the lord of men," "the hundred surnames," and "the Altar of the Spirits of Land and Grain", being both expressive of the native colour and impressive to English readers, I consider worth translating literally. On the contrary, such Chinese terms as Tao, Teh, li, mou, etc., which have no exact equivalent in English but are rather widely understood by English readers, seem better transliterated in most cases than translated.

In short, I have taken for the guiding principle of the present translation the retention of Chinese native colour within the limits of intelligibility to an average English reader.

II

So much above for the art of translating—translating words, phrases, and clauses. To me, however, translation can be science, as well as art. And it ought to be science when we come to the translation of sentences. This leads us to the logical methodology of translation. With such a new methodological problem in the foreground, I have, therefore, since the beginning of this work, thought of disclosing possibilities, if any, of applying logical principles to the translation of one language into another, as for example here, of Chinese into English, both being mutually so different. Thought the time is not as yet ripe for me to claim any success in the problem-solving effort, yet a few words about the application of the most general principles of logic to the science of translation may, it is hoped, be suggestive to my future comrades in the same field of exploration.

It is a truism that however different and numerous languages may be, the thought behind any language can be expressed in all of them equally well, provided that the thinker can skilfully command all the different systems of vocal gestures. It is practically the same as to say that one melody applies equally well to all different languages. What judgments are to thinking, so are melodies to feeling. Though single words of different languages may have different units of thought which they represent, yet every judgment laid down by reasoning always has its quantity and quality, regardless of the language it chooses for expression; just as the same melody, whether sung in Chinese or English, has its unique time and notes. Translation, therefore, is a restatement of thought in a different tongue with sentences rather than words as its basic units.

As judgments expressed in language make propositions, it is possible to make a logical analysis of every sentence of any language and then restate it in the appropriate form of a proposition and finally put it in the symbolic form of a judgment. When the judgment is thus determined, the original proposition in Chinese can be accordingly rendered into English. And, if the English rendering expresses the same unit of thought quantitatively and qualitatively, the translation, however grammatically and idiomatically different from the original, will then in substance be faithful to the idea of the author.

However, just as judgments differ from suspicions, so do propositions differ from questions. Yet certain types of questions customarily used are rhetorical and are more frequently found in Chinese than in English—such questions as, for instance, "Is it possible to rescue a misgoverned state from going to ruin?" or "How could it be justified to confer honours on loafers and demand services from warriors?" Inasmuch as such questions are suspicions in word but judgments in thought, in many cases my rendering chooses the form of propositions instead of questions.

As regards the three accepted types of propositions, they are as a rule interchangeable, since the categorical proposition is the origin of the hypothetical and alternative propositions. In the case of a categorical proposition, if the writing in the English rendering of the original sentence appears to be awkward or not intelligible to English readers, it ought to be advisable to apply the doctrines of opposition and eduction and see if the writing of the immediate inference from the original proposition is elegant in style and proficient in composition. For instance, there are in Chinese found such expressions as, "Man never fails to have father and mother," which implies "Everybody has parents". Now, compared with the former, which is the transfusion of the meaning of the original, the latter, which is the transfusion of an immediate inference of the original, certainly sounds elegant and proficient, without losing any portion of the original thought. Likewise, it is possible to express the substance of the original, which is a categorical proposition into a hypothetical or an alternative proposition. In short, wherever the transfusion of the meaning or direct sense fails, there the transfusion of the implication or indirect sense is preferable, although it is not always easy to determine at what point the validity of transfusing the meaning of a statement ends and the necessity of transfusing the implication begins. Herein lies an everlasting difficulty in the way of translation as well as the need of practice to master the skill of it.

Furthermore, in classical Chinese writing, judgments are very often expressed in hypothetical propositions, which the English-speaking people customarily prefer to express either in alternative or in categorical propositions. For instance, the saying, "Whoever advocates strict legalism, if not executed by public authorities, is infallibly assassinated by private swordsmen," is hypothetical, and can be restated in an alternative proposition, "Every advocate of strict legalism is either executed by public authorities or assassinated by private swordsmen." Of these two modes of expression, the latter seemingly sounds more idiomatically English than the former, while the sense remains the same. Another kind of hypothetical proposition, such as, for example, "When peace reigns, the state feeds loafers; once an emergency comes, she uses warriors," is the Chinese way of expression; but the equivalent categorical proposition, "In time of peace loafers are supported; in case of emergency warriors are employed," sounds far more idiomatically English than the original. In most cases like these, I have retained the native colour at the expense of idiomatic English.

The last, but by no means the least, important point throughout my English rendering is the distinction of "if" from "when" and "where". "If" is used in universal propositions to introduce "conditions" of certain events while "when" is used in particular propositions to introduce "temporal instances" and "where" to introduce "spatial instances" of certain events. Similarly, "if" introduces in general "conditions" of certain events, while "whenever" and "wherever" specify their temporal and spatial aspects respectively.

Such being the case, it is evident that translation is as closely allied with psychology and logic as with grammar and rhetoric and its objective is basically concerned with thought rather than with word. In as much as most readers of Han Fei Tzŭ's writings have been primarily interested in his thought since his days, the present translation with the aid of logic and psychology devotes more attention to the author's philosophical, than to his etymological, background.

III

Turning to the contents of the translation, I have found it necessary to divide each essay into paragraphs and, in a number of works, add descriptive sub-titles with a view to facilitating the reading of the text. Matters of historical and textual criticisms, which in many cases have been briefly taken up in the notes, are mostly derived from the works done by eminent commentators; while the annotations and elucidations are based on my judgment of their usefulness to the collation of the translation with the original. Matters of authenticity have been remarked in the notes frequently, yet for all detailed discussions I must again refer the reader to the companion volume.

In the transliteration of the Chinese names I have largely followed Giles's system with slight variations that I have found necessary in the interests of distinction and convenience. Thus, I have purposely differentiated "Chow" from "Chou", "Wey" from "Wei", and "Shen" from "Shên". In case of possible confusions and needful specifications, Chinese characters are found in the notes; otherwise, in the glossary. On the other hand, to minimize the monotony of the sounds of proper names and to refresh the reader's interest, I have used English words with equivalent meanings for all available names, such as the Yellow Emperor for Huang-ti, the Yellow River for Huang-ho, the Armour Gorge Pass for Han-ku-kuan, etc.

In regard to the author's citations from other books, I have either translated them directly from the respective Chinese texts or availed myself of the translations accomplished by such Western Sinologues as James Legge, H. A. Giles, etc., to whom I have acknowledged my indebtedness in the notes, despite my occasional differences from them. My translation thus done has accepted every writing by Han Fei Tzŭ, whether genuine or spurious, as it has been preserved through all catastrophes since antiquity.

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.

V

The present translation of Han Fei Tzŭ's works has been worked out principally in view of the author's philosophy in general and political and legal thought in particular. Though etymological problems are not ignored at all, yet I have always seen to it that attention to words does not lead to distraction from thought. It is the author's thought that I have intended to restate intelligibly in English, but it is the Chinese native colour that I have expected to preserve as faithfully as possible. Between the horns of this dilemma I have groped towards the realization of this work.

The Biography of Han Fei Tzŭ By Ssŭ-ma Ch`ien

Han Fei was one of the princes of the Han State. He was fond of studies in penology, epistemology, law, and statecraft, tracing his principles to the Yellow Emperor and Lao Tzŭ. Fei, being a habitual stutterer, was unable to deliver fluent speeches, but proficient in writing books. While he was studying with Li Ssŭ under Hsün Ch`ing, Ssŭ considered himself not as successful as Fei. Fei, when seeing Han dwindling and weakening, frequently submitted memorials to the Throne and presented counsels to the King of Han. The King of Han, however, was incapable of taking them into use. Thereupon Han Fei was incensed with the ruler who in governing the state never attempted to improve laws and institutions; never attempted to make use of his august position and thereby rule his subjects; never attempted to enrich the state and strengthen the army; and, in choosing personages, instead of employing worthies, elevated frivolous and dissolute vermin and placed them in posts above men of real merit. He alleged that the literati by means of letters disturbed laws and the cavaliers by means of weapons transgressed prohibitions; and that in time of ease the ruler treated famous personages with great favour, but in case of emergency he called armed warriors to the colours. Now that those who had been fed were not taken into active service and those who had been taken into active service were not fed, Han Fei lamented for honest and upright gentlemen over their inadmissibility to wicked and crooked ministers, observed the changing factors of success and failure of the preceding ages, and, accordingly, composed such works asSolitary Indignation, Five Vermin, Inner and Outer Congeries of Sayings, Collected Persuasions, Difficulties in the Way of Persuasion, which altogether covered upwards of one hundred thousand words. Though Han Fei knew very well the difficulties of persuasion, wherefore his work on the difficulties in the way of persuasion was very comprehensive, yet he met an untimely death in Ch`in after all and was unable to rescue himself from the final calamity. . . .

Someone had introduced his Works in Ch`in. Reading the Works,Solitary Indignation andFive Vermin, the King of Ch`in exclaimed: "Lo! Only if I, the King, can meet the author and become friendly with him, I would not regret my death thereafter." "These are Works of Han Fei," remarked Li Ssŭ.

Therefore, Ch`in launched an attack upon Han. At first, the King of Han did not take Fei into service. When the emergency came, he sent Fei as a good-will envoy to Ch`in. The King of Ch`in liked him. Yet before he had confidence in him and took him into service, Li Ssŭ and Yao Ku did an ill office to him. Before the Throne, they slandered him, saying: "Han Fei is one of the princes of the Han State. As Your Majesty is now thinking of conquering the feudal lords, Fei will in the long run work for Han and not for Ch`in. Such is the natural inclination of human nature. Now, if Your Majesty does not take him into service, and, after keeping him long, sends him home, it is to leave a source of future trouble. The best is to censure him for an offence against the law." Considering this admonition reasonable, the King of Ch`in instructed officials to pass sentence on Han Fei. In the meantime, Li Ssŭ sent men to bring poisonous drugs to Han Fei and order him to commit suicide. Han Fei wanted to plead his own case before the Throne and vindicate his innocence but could not have an audience with the King. Later, the King of Ch`in repented and instructed men to pardon him, but Fei had already died (233 b.c.). . . .

Preface to "The Complete Works of Han Fei Tzŭ with Collected Commentaries"

Han Fei lived at the time when the weakened State of Han was facing an imminent danger. On account of his remoteness in kinship to the ruling house, he could not advance his career and join governmental service. Witnessing the vices of the itinerants and diplomatists, who beguiled the lords of men and thereby sought for their own advantages, and the evils of the wicked and villainous people, who committed violence and outrage at their own pleasure and could not be suppressed, he bitterly criticized administrators of state affairs for their inability to exercise the powers vested in them, enforce penal laws definitely, forbid wicked deeds decisively, purge the government and the country from corruptions, and scheme for peace and order. He took the fate of the country as his own and pointed out the obstacles in its way. As there was left no chance for him to reform the surroundings, he wrote laboriously and thereby clarified his proposed remedies. Therefore, in thought he was vehement and in word informative, thus differentiating himself sharply from the rest of the thinkers and writers of the Era of the Warring States (403-222 B.C.).

After reading his literary remains in the present age and inferring therefrom the political trends of his times, everybody is inclined to maintain that aside from Han Fei's teachings, there could be no other ways and means to create order out of chaos in those days. Indeed, benevolence and beneficence are significant means of mass control, but are not ways of suppressing wickedness and outrage. Mencius had taught the rulers of his days benevolence and righteousness and abhorred any discussion on the problem of profit. According to Fei's sayings, however, "The learned men of the age, when giving counsels to the lord of men, do not tell them to harass the wicked and rapacious ministers with authority and severity, but all speak about benevolence, and compassion. So do the present-day sovereigns admire the names of benevolence and righteousness but never carefully observe their actual effects." As a matter of fact, what the then sovereigns admired was not what Mencius had called benevolence and righteousness only, but was, as the itinerants emphasized, "either benevolence and righteousness or profit." As regards the advice to employ authority and severity, nobody but Fei, a relative of the royal family, dared to utter it.

Han Fei's ideas and principles, no doubt, involve biases and bigotries. Yet his teaching that law should be made clear and penalty should be made strict to save all lives out of chaos, purge All-under-Heaven from calamities, prevent the strong from oppressing the weak, the many from transgressing the few, and enable the aged and infirm to live a happy ending and the young and the orphan to grow up to their best, is an emphasis on the utility of the legal code and on the propriety of severity and leniency, which in motive and purpose does not differ from Mencius's advice how to utilize ease and leisure and clarify the rules of political and penal administration.

After his theory had failed to take effect in Han, the legalism enforced by Ch`in happened to be identical with it, till she succeeded in exterminating the rest of the Warring States and annexed All-under-Heaven. Accordingly, Tung Tzŭ-nai said, "Ch`in practised Han Fei's theory." In the light of the facts that when Fei was appointed a good-will envoy to Ch`in, the state policy of Ch`in had already been well fixed and her supreme position in the world had been successfully established, and that no sooner had he entered Ch`in than he was put to death, how could it be said that Ch`in had acted on his theory?

His writings altogether cover twenty books. Hitherto few of the commentaries have succeeded in elucidating the whole text. It is not until my younger cousin, Hsien-shen, has collected all the commentaries, corrected the errors, supplied the hiatuses, and discussed the meanings and implications of dubious points, that the author's text appears lucidly readable.The Tao of the Sovereign and its following Works were most probably written during the lifetime of the author.The First Interview with the King of Ch`in and others at the opening of the text were subsequently added. In these memorials Fei attempted to persuade the Ruler of Ch`in not to ruin Han and thereby schemed for the preservation of the ancestral shrines of his people. His plan was extremely unique, wherefore every gentleman sees the more reason to sympathize with his patriotic cause.

Old Man of the Sunflower Garden,

Wang Hsien-ch`ien.

Twelfth Month, Winter, nd Year of Kuang-hsü (January, 1897).

Foreword to "The Complete Works of Han Fei Tzŭ with Collected Commentaries"

The Works of Han Fei Tzŭin the remote past had Yin Chi-chang'sCommentary as mentioned in theRecords of Arts and Letters in theHistory of T`ang. The number of the books was not recorded most probably because theCommentary has been lost long before. During the Yüan Dynasty (a.d. 1279-1367) Ho Huan said that Li Tsan's Commentary had been in existence. Yet Li Tsan's life and work can no longer be traced. The edition which appeared during the Ch`ien-tao period (a.d. 1165-1173) of the Sung Dynasty (a.d. 960-1279) bears no name of the editor. Nobody has as yet disclosed the anonymity. All the quotations and citations from Han Fei Tzŭ's Works as found in theT`ai-p`ing Imperial Library, theLiterary Works on Facts and Varieties, andClassical Selections for Beginners, coincide with the text of the Ch`ien-tao edition. If so, the anonym must have lived before the Sung Dynasty.

As regards these early commentaries, they do not completely cover the whole works of the author, and, moreover, contain mistakes and errors. Nevertheless, these pioneering efforts have proved exceedingly helpful to scholars of recent times. Accordingly, I have juxtaposed the various commentaries and from place to place interposed my own viewpoints among them. In consequence, I have compiled the present work,The Complete Works of Han Fei Tzŭwith Collected Commentaries, in which the author's text is largely based on the Ch`ien-tao edition whose errors are corrected and hiatuses are supplied in accordance with the contents of other editions.

Wang Hsien-shen.

Changsha,

First Winter Month, 1st Year of Kuang-hsü (November, 1895).