[I N T R O D U C T I O N: 
CHAPTER III:  The Book of Lord Shang and the School of Law]

1. The Makers of the School of Law

p.66 The first attempt at classifying the mass of philosophical writers which had come down from antiquity, in which mention is made of the School of Law, was made by Ssu-ma T’ an, the father of the great historian, Ssu-ma Ch’ ien (313). In the 130th chapter of the work of his son, a small treatise from his hand has been preserved. It was written, in order to prove the superiority of Taoism, in which he was himself especially interested, over the other doctrines of the day, but the interest here lies in the fact that he gives a brief analysis of each of the rival schools. He mentions six schools altogether, which are: (1) The Taoist School; (2) that of Yin and Yang, or of the Philosophy of Nature; (3) that of the Ju, or the Confucian School; (4) that of Mo-tzu, i.e. the philosopher, Mo Ti; (5) that of Names or Terminology; and (6) the School of Law.

p.67 Ssu-ma T’ an regarded this last school very critically, though he was broad-minded enough to recognize its good points.

« They do not distinguish between relations and strangers, and make no difference between noble and low. All were in the same manner judged by the law, so that the virtue of loving one’ s relatives and honouring the honourable disappeared. Their doctrines might be practised for a certain time and for a definite purpose, but they should not be put into practice for ever. Therefore I say, that they are severe and are wanting in virtue. However, the fact that they clearly established the differences between the honoured position of a ruler and the low state of a subject, so that their respective functions and duties cannot get entangled, cannot be undone by a hundred schools.

The next great classification, which has come down to us in great detail, is the famous catalogue of books in the History of the early Han dynasty (314). It is based on a division, made by Liu Hsin, the son of Liu Hsiang, who had so large a share in the collation and preservation of books in the days of Ch’ eng-ti (B.C. 32-6). Liu Hsin, who at his father’ s death was ordered to continue the work, made a division under seven heads, one of which included the “Various Philo sophers”. In the Han History, Pan Ku subdivides these into ten schools, adding to the six already mentioned above those of the political philosophers, the Eclecticians, the agricultural writers and the minor narratives. With the omission of the last-named unimportant section, these schools are often spoken of as the “Nine Schools”.

p.68 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.” Th is 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:

ßLi-tzu (315), in 32 sections; ß the Lord of Shang, in 29 sections; ß Shen-tzu (316), in 6 sections; ß Ch’u -tzu (317), in 9 sections; ß Shen-tzu (318), in 42 sections; ß Han-tzu (319), in 55 sections; ß Yu Hsi-tzu (320), in 1 Section; p.69 ß Ch’ao Ts’o (321), in 31 sections; ß the Ten Affairs of Yen (322), in 10 sections; ß the Sayings of the School of Law (323), 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 (324), 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-tzu.

Both Kuan-tzu 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 -tzu lived in Cheng (325), in the second half of the sixth century B.C. He was a contemporary of another famous statesman, Tzu Ch’an, who is said to have composed the first penal code, which was p.70 engraved on iron tripods. Têng Hsi-tzu rewrote this code on bamboo tablets. In 501 he was executed by Tzu Ch’an’s successor in the highest office (326).

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 (327). Nor can we trust the authority of the great work, in 24 books, known as Kuan-tzu. 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 (328).

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, p.71 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 (329), 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. 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 p.72 greatest sophist of the time, Hui Shih (330), 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 (331), who startled the world by his exercises in logic, launching such statements as “a white horse is not a horse”. Here (332) also came the celebrated author of a system of natural philosophy, Tsou Yen (333), and the famous sophist Shun-yü K’un (334).

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 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 p.73 was born in Chao in the fourth century, but it is true that we know of him that he formed part of the association which enjoyed the protection of King Hsüan of Ch’i (335). Shen Pu-hai, however, was a minister of Han between 351-337, and between 361-338 lies the brilliant career of the Lord of Shang in Ch’in (336). The greatest of all this group, Han Fei-tzu (337), was also a man from Han, and from the way he frequently refers to the books of the Lord of Shang, of Shen Pu-hai, and also of Shen Tao, one has the impression that there certainly was a local tradition. It is of course not likely that either Shen Pu-hai or Lord Shang wrote anything themselves, but it may be supposed that the books to which their names were attached were evolved in the favourable atmosphere created by King Hui’s protection of scholars.

The intellectual life in this circle was the more animated as it had numerous contacts with another and still more famous centre of scholars. This was the celebrated academy at the gate of Chi (338), in the state of Ch’i, in the East. Here during the second half of the fourth century B.C. and at the beginning of the third century, were assembled several of the leading minds of the times. There came Tsou Yen, a man loaded with honours; and Shun-yü K’un, both of whom we have already met with at the Court of King Hui; T’ien P’ien, “with the p.74 divine mouth” (339), a philosopher with Taoist tendencies, but also, according to Hsün-tzu, interested in the study of terminology and law, and mentioned by him in one breath with Shen Tao (340); there was also the latter, who had come from his native state of Chao, also a Taoist; there was P’eng Mêng, the master of T’ien P’ien, who is said not to have been a good student; there was Yin Wên-tzu (341), a little younger than the others, also a Taoist, but keenly interested in the problems of terminology, and Sung Hsing (342), a great pacifist and disciple of Mo Ti. All these scholars lived in a kind of academy, which King Hsüan of Ch’i (319 -301) had built for them and where they received rich subsidies. There were not less than seventy-six of these privileged scholars, who, as a sign that they belonged to the “Association of the Hua Mountain”, as they called it, wore a special cap, flat at both top and bottom (343). At some time Mencius himself formed part of this brilliant company, and perhaps even Chuang-tzu. It is said that several thousands of scholars flocked together, attracted by the fame of these leading men and by the favourable treatment which they received at the hands of the p.75 king. We know that Hsün-tzu (344) came, probably as a young man; and his eager and unformed mind better understood some of the discussions that took place, than the less profound and already mature Mencius, who, however, was also affected by them (345).

The personality of Hsün-tzu is of particular interest, because he forms a link between the older and later jurists; as the greatest jurist of all, and the one whose woks have come down with the highest degree of reliability, Han Fei-tzu, is said to have been a pupil of Hsün-tzu.