[I N T R O D U C T I O N:   CHAPTER IV:  The Text of the Book of Lord Shang]

2. The Authenticity of the Text

The first criticism as to the authorship of the Book of Lord Shang appears during the Sung dynasty. Huang Chen, a chin-shih of the Pao-yu period (1253-9), writes in his Huang-shih-jih-ch’ao, chap. IV:

« Shang-tzu, is a book by Kung-sun Shang Yang. It begins with ‘Cultivation of Waste Lands’ and urges people to farm and fight. Its text is confused and incoherent and cannot be divided into sentences. Now after a thousand years, one’s mind and eyes become still confused by the opening chapter (550); how much more this must have been the case with those who at the time suffered (the author’s) iniquities in their own bodies ! However, when the Court confers the title of Yü-shih, censor, in reality it applied the teaching of this book, and the fact that, whenever affairs arise, law officials are consulted, finds also its origin in this book. Those in later generations, who in everything take the law as basis for their decisions, should understand where it comes from. It may perhaps be objected that, as Yang was also a capable p.142 law-official, his book should not be so confused and disorderly; and it is almost impossible to know whether it is genuine or spurious.

The Chou-shih-shê-pi, also a work of the Sung dynasty, says: « To the Book of Shang Yang much later material has been added, and words from others have been taken, which do not belong to the original text. The essential and important places of the book are already completely contained in the Biography in the Shih-chi.

What has now been preserved are, on the whole, verbose and exaggerated expressions which do not deserve any attention. …

What the Shih-chi did not contain, has been gradually added on by the makers of books and was not material that had been generally current. How should it have been possible, at the time when Ch’in first began to be prosperous, that official titles at the Court were obtained by-means of wealth, and how should it have been possible before Duke Hsiao, that on the one hand power was sold in order to obtain wealth and that on the other inferior officials thereby obtained promotion ? (551)

The Ssu-k’u-ch’üan-shu-tsung-mu-t’i -yao (1782) which has been quoted before (552), in discussing this criticism, says that the theory about the later additions in Shang Yang’s book, is merely a hypothesis and cannot be proved.

However, from the facts as recorded in the Shih-chi, it appears that after the death of Duke Hsiao, Shang Yang had to fly for his life; and soon after was executed, so he cannot possibly have had time to compose a book. On the other hand, if he had written it during the p.143 time he held office at Duke Hsiao’s Court, how is it that the latter’s posthumous name is mentioned in the first section ? Probably his followers of the School of Law collected his sayings and composed the book, just as in the case of Kuan-tzu, who died before Duke Huan, and yet the posthumous name of the latter occurs repeatedly in the book now bearing Kuan-tzu’s name. There are many books of this kind; but as we cannot discover the name of the real author, we continue to call the book by the name of the man to whom it has been ascribed.

The “Abbreviated Catalogue to the Ssu-k’u-ch’üan-shu”. in chap. 10, the section on philosophers, 3, School of Law, also expresses its belief that the book was composed by Shang Yang’s disci ples, as, « although he cannot have written it himself, yet on the other hand the words of the book are so harsh and terrible, that they appear to be his sayings transmitted by his followers. It is not the work of post-Ch’in people

Modern scholars have, on the whole, taken a rather critical view. Hu Shih points out a few of the anachronisms in par. 15, which we shall discuss later, and concludes that the book must have been composed after Shang Yang’s death so that it cannot be regarded as “genuine” (553). Liang Ch’i -ch’ao is of opinion that the Book of Lord Shang, like Kuan-tzu, has not been written by the man with whose name it is connected, but that it has been put together towards the end of the “Period of the Warring States” by people who were interested in the School of Law; its value therefore is similar to the collections on the Rites, li, by the two cousins Tai (554).

A. Ivanov, who, among foreign scholars, has been the first to devote a monograph to one of the writers of the School of Law, viz. Han Fei-tzu, states in his introduction, that he regards the Book of Lord Shang to be in a well-finished condition. “We do not find in it any important repetitions and foreign interpolations” (555). 2Dr. A. Forke (556) does not believe that Shang Yang wrote the Book himself; he thinks that after his death his sayings were collected by his adherents, specially those who, as officials, were interested in law and administration. Some sections (557) may have been based on official reports which Shang Yang submitted to the prince, because the expression ch’en “I, your servant” occurs in them; some other sections, which are very corrupt (558), should in Professor Forke’s opinion perhaps be regarded as interpolations.

H. Maspero thinks that the Book was composed some time in the third century by an unknown author; he asserts, however, that this original work is now lost and that the p.145 present “Book of Lord Shang” is a fake of the time of the Six Dynasties (559) (220-587).

A different point of view is represented by Dr. Kuo-cheng Wu, who regards the Book as the work of Shang Yang himself and believes that it is the best of all the legalistic writings of that period, both from the standpoints of its authenticity and of its value (560). He does not, however, give the reasons on which this opinion is based.

In view of these very different opinions as to the value of the text, it is necessary to undertake a careful investigation of it.

As has been pointed out by the Chinese critics just quoted, it is in itself highly improbable that a statesman like Shang Yang, who is said to have been killed almost immediately after resigning his office, would have found an opportunity for writing at all, and even a cursory examination of the text shows that he cannot have been the author. In the 1st paragraph we see that Duke Hsiao is referred to by his posthumous name; in paragraph 15 the person addressed is called King, a title that Duke Hsiao’s successors adopted more than ten years after the death of Shang Yang; also the posthumous title of King Hsien of Wei, who died in 319, is mentioned, as are various events, of which the latest took place in 260. At the end of paragraph 20 references are made to events that happened in 301 and 278, and there is even a probable allusion to the partition of Ch’u in 241.

Not only, however, can Shang Yang himself not have been the author of the present book, but the various parts of it p.146 certainly do not come from the same hand. There is a vast difference in style in the 24 paragraphs which have been preserved; some are extremely terse and concise, others are long-winded or use in part a different vocabulary. This difference in style corresponds very nicely with a difference in ideas.

Let us first examine some general particularities. The only sections where Shang Yang, here called Kung-sun Yang, is mentioned at all, are pars. 1 and 26. There, he is supposed to be in conversation with Duke Hsiao. Now par. 1, the famous discussion anent the reform of the law, shows a remarkable resemblance to another famous conversation, held by Duke Wu-ling of Chao (325-299), with his ministers, about the adoption of the dress of the barbarians; this is given in the Chan-kuo-ts’ê (561), and has also found its way into the Shih-chi (562). As will be duly pointed out in the notes to the translation, practically the whole of this section is found in these; from the disjointed way in which the phrases occur there, it seems more likely that the account in Shang-tzu has been taken from them rather than the other way about. The conversation in this first paragraph is also reproduced in the Biography in the Shih-chi, with certain abbreviations, so that this piece of pure literature must have been composed before Ssu-ma Ch’ien’s time. It has no connection with the rest of the book and merely serves as an introduction.

The 26th paragraph is of a very different type from this. It seems to presuppose the official organization of the Ch’in dynasty; it speaks of the necessity of establishing p.147 law-officials, in the various feudal states, in the same way as this was done in Ch’in (563), which would point to the beginning of that period. Also, however, it mentions an indication of time whereby month, day and hour should be given (564). As the indication of hours by cyclical characters did not exist before the Han dynasty, this might point to that period; it is, however, possible that only indications like “the crowing of the cock”, etc., which were in vogue much earl ier, are meant. The ideas developed in this paragraph are certainly of a later date than those in several other paragraphs (565).

The official hierarchy of the Ch’in state is also the basis of the very corrupt par. 19. In spite of a few unintelligible passages it is clear that it simply develops the idea that promotion is given according to the number of heads cut off, which has already been explained (566). I should not therefore regard it as a later interpolation, as Professor Forke (567) does, but rather as belonging to the old part of the book; the style is very concise.

Apart from the last part of 20, the only other section where special mention is made of Ch’in is par. 15. This is in the form of a report or speech; we have already seen (568) that it contains several anachronisms, so that it cannot have been written before the second half of the third century; its style is certainly not of a very old type.

A characteristic of this paragraph is its illustration by historical events.

The same is done in pars. 17, 18, and the last part of 20. The latter, because of the anachronisms mentioned (569), cannot very well be older than the second half p.148 of the third century. Par. 17 is very long-winded; it is perhaps the latest paragraph of the whole book.

Like par. 15, the paragraphs 17 and 18 are in the form of a report or speech, and the speaker refers to himself as [], “your servant”. This same figure of speech occurs in pars. 6, 9, 23, 24 and 25. Of these 6 and 9 are of a simpler type than the last three mentioned.

The paragraphs 10, 11 and 12 stand entirely by themselves, dealing with military matters. They are chiefly based on old sayings, partly from a book called the “Art of War”. These paragraphs may be remnants of the “Military Treatise in 27 sections of Kung-sun Yang”, mentioned by the Han catalogue (570).

Of a very peculiar type are the paragraphs 4, 5, 13, and 20. They are very corrupt and can only be well understood in conjunction with each other. It is clear that in their present form they are not the original paragraphs, for the same statements and phrases are repeated over and over again in them. They are probably attempts to reconstruct the original sections, but evidently the material which the unknown editor found was insufficient to go round, so he contented himself with repetitions. This at any rate shows that he was extremely conscientious, as a faker would have invented freely as the need arose. The style of these sections is very terse and concise; no other particles occur in them except [][][][][][][][]; they have no other style of arguing than the chain of parallelisms: “if this is the case, then …; if that is the case, then …” Par. 13 is in part the same as par. 53 in Han Fei -tzu, which does not belong to the part of that book, which is generally p.149 ascribed to that author, but need not however be of a later date. After careful study both of the form and the contents of these paragraphs I have come to the conclusion that these fragments belong to the oldest portions of the Book of Lord Shang, although there are probably some later admixtures (571).

Of the remaining paragraphs, 2 and 3 show an old style similar to that of those just named, but 3 certainly has later additions, like the part beginning with: “Consequently all the lower officials say” (572), which seems to be an imitation of paragraph 14 in Han Fei-tzu. This third section is now called Nung-chan and may therefore be more or less the same as that indicated by Ssu-ma Ch’ien as Keng-chan which means the same thing.

Paragraph 7 has the title of the other book that Ssu-ma Ch’ien mentions, viz. K’ai -sai. These expressions do indeed occur in it, but I am inclined to think that this title belonged originally to par. 8, where the terms are used in a far more typical sense of “opening”, k’ai, only one gate to riches and honour, i.e. agriculture and warfare, and by closing, sai, all other gates. The titles and numbers of the paragraphs may have easily been confused, when editing the book, and we have seen that Wei Cheng mentions a paragraph before what is now 14, which was altogether omitted later in numbering the paragraphs (573).

The ideas of 7 and 8 fit in with those of 4, 5, 13 and 20; their style generally resembles most that of 6 and 9.

Paragraph 14, which we have not yet discussed, is very interesting, but I do not think that it belongs to the old part of the book. Its style is different, and the ideas which it develops are too advanced. It speaks of such things as p.150 ming-fen “to make clear everyone’s rights and duties”, with which the 2 6th paragraph is occupied, although it is of an older type than this.

Finally we have the 22nd paragraph; this is of little importance. It seems to be of different, and certainly of later, origin; whereas in other paragraphs severity of punishments and scarcity of rewards are generally urged, this paragraph pleads for liberality in the bestowal of rewards.

Thus we find different strata: paragraphs 4, 5, 13 and 20 (except the last part), containing old fragments, as well as 19; to this group may belong paragraphs 2 and 3, with certain exceptions; 7 and 8; the group in which [] occurs, of which 6 and 9 are older, the other paragraphs being later, 17 certainly so; 1 and 26 being supposed conversations but also certainly later, and 26 being similar to 23, 24 and 25; and finally 10, 11 and 12 containing old fragments.

We shall now give some examples of difference in vocabulary between the various paragraphs. Although it has not been possible to establish series of words, which occur regularly only in certain paragraphs, there are some key-words which are limited to a few paragraphs. “lice, parasites” is only found in pars. 4, 5, 8, 13, 20; [] in the sense of “to unify, oneness” in pars. 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 11, 13, 17, 18; [] “simple” in pars. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8. 13, 20; [] “to consolidate” in pars. 3, 5, 8; the expression [][] “intelligent prince” in pars. 3, 6, 8, 9, 23; [][] “intelligent ruler” in pars 7, 9, 14, 18, 20, 23, 25, 26, having 9 and 23 in common with the synonymous expression just mentioned; [] “to relax” in pars. 14, 15, 20, 23, 25; [] “measure” in pars. 6, 7, 8, 9, 14; “to debar” in pars 5, 6, 7, 8, 18, 22; [] “weight of the balance, deciding influence, standard, authority” in pars. 2, 3, 6, 8, p.151 14, 20; [] “condition”, sometimes rendered by “power”, in pars. 6, 7, 11, 18, 20, 24, 25, 26; [] “method” in pars. 3, 6, 10; [] “number, statistics” in pars. 3, 4, 6, 9, 13, 14, 15, 24, 25; etc. It does not seem necessary to accumulate these examples. There is little regularity; generally, however, it may be said that the last four paragraphs of the book show the same vocabulary, and this is on the whole very different from that of pars. 4, 5, 13 and 20.

It is interesting to pursue our study of the text in some more detail.

Although it is quite clear that the styles of various paragraphs differ greatly, it is not so easy to define wherein exactly the difference lies. I have therefore followed the excellent example set by Karlgren in his important treatise “On the Authenticity and Nature of the Tso Chuan” (574), and have undertaken an examination of the grammatical auxiliaries. Apart from the few hinges on which every Chinese phrase turns, like [][][][][][][], which recur with monotonous regularity, there is a great paucity of functional auxiliaries. Karlgren examined the following words …. I have included in my investigation ….. The results are as follows 1 (575): ….

p.153 In the first place, this grammatical analysis confirms, definitely, the connection between the various sections, which was established on general philological grounds, and allows of further conclusions. Paragraphs 4, 5, 13, and 20 are found to be practically free from all the characters in the list …. Par. 13 has one [] in the opening passage, which it has in common with the spurious paragraph 53 in Han Fei-tzu, under the influence of which it has probably been reconstructed. Par. 19 has only one [] in a doubtful case (576), and twice it has []. In pars. 1 and 26 particles are frequent, as they are in the group where [] is used, i.e. 6, 9, 15, 17, 18, 23, 24, 25, with the marked exception of 23, where they are entirely missing. In pars. 10, 11, and 12 particles occur, though they are not numerous; likewise in pars. 7, 8, 14. and 22. In par. 2 only the particle [] is found with great frequency, whereas par. 3 is particularly rich with particles, but only in certain parts which are of a different style from the rest of the paragraph.

Further analysis reveals that there is a distinction in the use of [] and [], the latter never occurring in the sense of “if”, but being the predominant word for “like”; [] as “like” is only found in pars. 8, 10, 15, 17, 18, the latter part of 20 and 25, and of these three times (par. 10, 5a; 18, 8b; 20. 5a) it is in 1 [css: les hypothèses et les résultats présentés ne peuvent être totalement exploités sans les caractères chinois. Nous avons cependant gardé l’expression du raisonnement de l’auteur.] quotations. In the other cases it is either in the combination [][] or with a negative. [], though it does occur, is very rare; once only (par 3, 7a) does it form part of the text; the only other place where it is found (par 17, p.154 6a) it belongs to a historical quotation. The exclamatory [] is always found in connection with an interrogative, like [] or an intensifying particle, like [], chiefly in quotations or historical allusions. Only twice (par. 15, 2b, 3a) does it form part of the ordinary text. With regard to [] and (], the latter is only used in the nominative (par. 1, la; 7, 10a; 15, 3b) and genitive (par. 7, 10b); the former occurs as nominative plural (par. 3, 7ab; 18, 9a); as accusative (par. 1, 1a; 18, 10a; 25, 10a), and as dative plural (par. 17, 6a with []).

It is of interest to compare these results with those given in Karlgren’s study. I may here briefly recall the method which he devised. Taking as his starting point the Tso-chuan, he compared the use of grammatical auxiliaries in this work with those in other books, and came to the conclusion that a marked difference in the employment of certain particles may be traced in the pre-Han literature, which was afterwards effaced, owing to the syncretic nature of the Chinese language, which enriched itself with elements of different origin. Two distinct dialects may be distinguished, the first used in the Tso-chuan, and the second in the Lun-yü, Mencius, etc., called by Karlgren the Tso dialect and the Lu dialect respectively. Further a remarkable uniformity in grammar can be shown to exist in all the books of the third century B.C., which Karlgren examined, viz. the Lu-shih-ch’un-ch’iu, the Chan-kuo-ts’e, Hsün-tzu, and Han Fei-tzu. The main results, as far as they concern us here, are as follows 1: ……..

Summing up these results, Karlgren states that the third century texts have a language, which differs considerably from that of the Lu dialect, and even much more so from that of Tso. Unlike the former it has no [] and [] which are such salient features of this dialect. Unlike the Tso dialect, it has [] as well as [] for “like”, “as”; it has the preposition [] and, to a small extent, the final []; it lacks the preposition [], and there is no functional distinction between [] and [], and finally it possesses, though with varying frequency, the final []. Karlgren gives a table (577) where in the case of the particles sub 2°, 3°, 4°, 5°, 6°, 9°, the letter a indicates their existence and the letter b their absence; ….

p.157 Together with the Shu-ching, Shih-ching, Lu dialect, Kuo-yü, and Tso-chuan, Karlgren places in’ this table, Chuang-tzu, which, however, shows certain tendencies that are rare in the ordinary third century texts (578). I, therefore, add the characteristics of the general type of these texts, neglecting exceptions, and place them side by side with those of Shang-tzu’s text. We then get the following synopsis: 1 [css: à nouveau, les résultats présentés ne peuvent être totalement exploités sans les caractères chinois.]

Shu Shih Lu Chuang Kuo-yü Tso 3rd Cent Shang
1° a c b b b c b b
2° b a a b b b b b
3° b a a b b b b b
4° b b a a b b b b
5° b b a a b b b b
6° b a b b a a b b
7° b b a a c c a a
8° b c a a a a a a
9° b b b a b b b b

p.158 So the grammatical affinity of those parts of Shang-tzu where these particles are found, to a certain type of third century texts is complete, with the reservations indicated in the footnotes to the synoptic table 1. No other third century text shows such a strong resemblance to our text as that of Han Fei-tzu. It is the only one in which [] (sub 4°) as a final is also entirely missing. This impression is completely confirmed by a literary analysis: in the notes on my translation I have on twenty-nine occasions had to refer to Han Fei-tzu for the same or similar expressions, and no doubt this number could be increased. Most of these references are to sections the authenticity of which is in doubt; of those admitted as genuine by Hu Shih (579), I have only given references to par. 40, 43, and 45, and of these par. 43 is specially devoted to a criticism of Shang Yang. It may be supposed that much of the two books goes back to a common inheritance of the School of Law; and it is not, therefore, surprising that I have also found occasion to refer twelve times to Kuan-tzu. Von der Gabelentz, in his Vorbereitendes zur Kritik des Kuan-tsï (580), says that he found nothing in the Shang-chün-shu which referred to Kuan-tzu, and this is true to the extent that Kuan-tzu is nowhere quoted, but there are certainly parallel expressions and ideas, and I am sure that a minute examination of Kuan-tzu would bring to light a great many more than I have found. In view of the highly complex character p.159 of the text of Kuan-tzu (581), which must be a medley of elements of very different dates, it is interesting to find these parallelisms in our text.

To sum up: the conclusion to which this examination leads us can be no other than this: — the present Book of Lord Shang is a compilation of paragraphs, of different styles, some of which are older than the others; the older ones contain probably the mutilated remnants of the original book that has been lost; the later ones date, on the whole, from the third century. Some, like the 26th, seem to date from the last quarter of that century, and as I have no wish to be dogmatic, I admit the possibility that a paragraph like the 17th, although in the use of particles it shows the third century characteristics, may nevertheless be considerably later, because it is much more verbose than texts of that period usually are. The other paragraphs are, however, valuable, either because they bring us in touch with what were, I believe, the original ideas of the School of Law, or because they shove the later phases of its development. 1 [css: réserves non reprises, pour les mêmes motifs]

We do not know at what date the compilation of the Book in its present form took place; it may have been at the time of the Six Dynasties, as Maspero suggests (582). We may safely admit, with that scholar, that the present book is a “faux”, in the sense that it is not the work in its original form; I believe, however, to have shown that we have no right to reject it, as if it were a fake without value. * * *