(Translated by J. J.-L. DUYVENDAK (1889-1954))

N O T E S

(101) I have preferred to render Shang-chün by the Lord Shang or the Lord of Shang, rather than by the Prince of Shang, as he is sometimes called; because I believe that the former expression is a better equivalent of the feudal-rank which he held.

(102) T’u -shu-chi-ch’eng, Li -hsüeh-hui-pien, Ching-chi-tien, ch. 441.tzu

(103) Chang-shih-ts’ung-shu, book Chien-lun, ch. 9, pp. 4a-7b.

(104) Yin-ping-shih-ts’ung-chü (1916), I, book Shih-chuan-chin-i, ch. Kuan-tzu-chuan, Appendix, pp. 1-47.

(105) Ancient Chinese Political Theories (1928).

(106) Materialy po kitajskoj filosofii, vvedenie škola fa (1912).

(107) Geschichte der alten Chinesischen Philosophie (1927).

(108) Ancient Chinese Political Theories (1928).

(109) Cf. Wang Shih-jun (see infra), p. 1 of his Introduction.

(110) Cf. p. 139.

(111) La conception de la loi et les théories des légistes à la veille des Ts’in. par J. Escarra et R. Germain (Pékin, 1926). For further literature, on the Law School, cf. the note on p. XXI of that work.

(112) References to ancient Chinese books, throughout this work, are to the following editions:

ß Shih-chi; Nanking ed., 1878.

ß Ch’ien -han-shu; idem.

ß Chan-kuo-ts’ê; ed. of 1581, based on that of Wu Shih-tao (A.D. 1333).

ß Chou-li; ed. of 1639.

ß Li-chi; ed. Couvreur, 1899.

ß Shih-ching; ed. Legge, The Chinese Classics, IV, 1871.

ß Mencius; idem, II, 1861.

ß Lun-yü; idem, I, 1861.

ß Han Fei-tzu; Shanghai, 1925.

ß Hsün-tzu; idem.

ß Kuan-tzu; Shanghai, 1924.

ß Mo-tzu; idem, 1925.

ß Lü-shih-ch’un -ch’iu; 1875.

ß Huai Nan-tzu; idem, 1876.

ß Ho Kuan-tzu; 1804.

ß Sun-tzu; ed. L. Giles, 1910.

ß Han-shih-wai-chuan; Han-wei-ts’ung -shu, ed. 1911.

ß Hsin-hsu; idem.

ß Chi-chung-chou-shu; idem.

ß Chu-shu-chi-nien (Bamboo Annals); idem.

ß Hsin-shu; idem.

INTRODUCTION

(113) 255-206 B.C.

(114) Cf. Chavannes, Mém. Hist., III, p. 25.

(115) 198-165 B.C.

(116) [], forming part of the Hsin-shu, published in the Han-wei-ts’ung-shu. Cf. on him Chavannes, op. cit., I, Introduction, pp. CLVIII et sqq.

(117) The Hsiao pass was one of the « nine barriers » of Ch’in; it was situated 50 li north of the present Yung-ning-hsien in Honan. The Hsien or Hsien-ku pass lay south of Ling-pao-hsien in the same province.

(118) i.e. approximately the present provinces of Shensi and Kansu.

(119) Chavannes, op. cit., II, p. 225, translating this part, in a footnote says by mistake that the Lord of Shang is the same as Yuan Ang, who is an entirely different person (cf. ibid., p. 499).

(120) i.e. laws and rules.

(121) connected transversally. Heng « transversal » is technically used for Ch’in’s policy of expansion from west to east, whereas tsung « longitudinal » indicates the alliance of Ch’i and Ch’u and the states lying between them from north to south, and which was directed against Ch’in.

(122) Without any difficulty.

(123) Shih-chi-chi-chieh, collected explanations of the Shih-chi by P’ei Yin. This scholar, who made use of a great number of now lost sources, wrote the oldest commentary on the Shih-chi. He had some high literary dignity between 465-472. Cf. on him Chavannes, Mém. Hist., I, Introduction, p. CCXI.

(124) This sentence has, with slight alterations, been taken from Chia I’s essay on the “Mistakes of Ch’in”; cf. p. 2.

(125) i. e. Wei’s territory west of the Yellow River.

(126) i. e. the territory comprised by the present Yen-an-fu and Yu-lin-fu in Shensi.

(127) Ed. Legge, p. 331. The lines describe the perfection of the royal path.

(128) Shih-ching, ed. Legge, p. 353.

(129) Compiled according to the Shih-chi by order of King Wei of Ch’i

(378 -343), from a number of ancient writings, elucidating the principles of T’ien Jang -tsu Ssu-ma Jang-tsu, the military director of that state under Duke Ching

(547-490).

(130) The legendary director of husbandry under the Emperor Yao.

(131) i.e. Hsün-tzu.

(132) Duke Huan, acting under threat of being murdered at the moment when he was concluding a covenant with Lu at Ko

(in Shantung), promised to return to Lu all the land that he had conquered in the previous war. On the advice of Kuan Chung he kept his promise.

(133) The Marquis Wen of Chin having laid siege to the city of Yüan, and having ordered the soldiers to be provided with three days provision, said that if within three days Yüan would not surrender, he would raise the siege. On the third day he was informed that the city would surrender next evening. In spite of this report Marquis Wen retired, saying: « Good faith is the precious jewel of a state, and what the people depend upon. If I get Yüan and lose my good faith, of what protection could the people be assured ? My loss would be much greater than my gain. Cf. Ch’un-ch’iu. 25th year of Duke Hsi

(ed. Legge, p. 196). [css: Couvreur, Tso tchoan, t. I, pp. 372-373.]

(134) Appellation Hu Yen, who was the maternal uncle of Marquis Wen and was one of his councillors.

(135) See the Biography, infra, p. 21.

(136) This is a reference to his first conversations with Duke Hsiao, cf. p. 11.

(137) Duke Shao, one of the principal adherents of Wen-wang, the ancestor of the Chou dynasty.

(138) Shih-ching, ed. Legge, p. 26. [css: Couvreur, Che king, I, II, V]. The Ode runs:

1. This um brageous sweet pear-tree

Clip it not, hew it not down.

Under it the chief of Shao lodged.

2. This um brageous sweet pear-tree

Clip it not, break not a twig of it.

Under it the chief of Shao rested.

3. This um brageous sweet pear-tree

Clip it not, bend not a twig of it.

Under it the chief of Shao halted.

(139) Kuan-tzu, as a reward, obtained the city of P’ien, with three hundred families, which was taken from the chief of the Po family. So generally, however, were his merits recognized, that there was no protest. Cf. Lun-yü, XIV, 10

(Legge, p. 142) [css: Couvreur, Louen-yu]; also Hsün-tzu, chap. 3, par. 7, p. 34. Dubs, p. 83.)

(140) A pu, pace

(i.e. two of our paces) is here used as a fixed measure, consisting of six ch’ih. feet, used in measurements of land. One mu was 100 sq. pu. Cf. Ch’ien -han-shu, chap. 24, p. 1b; also Chavannes, Mém. Hist., II, p. 130. Forke, Geschichte der alten Chinesischen Philosophie, p. 453, misunderstands this phrase: « Wer gröszere Doppelschritte machte als 6 Fusz, erhielt eine leichte Strate. Vermuthlich galt das übermässige Ausschreiten als unschicklich oder als Zeichen besonderer Arroganz. »

(141) Forke, op. cit., p. 453, misinterprets this: « Als Shang Yang einmal am Ufer des Wei von Verbrechern sprach, soll nach der Tradition das Wasser des Flusses sich plötzlich blutrot gefärbt haben, ein Hinweis ant seine Blutgesetze. »

(142) By Ssu-ma Ch’ien, about 145 -86 B.C.

(143) Composed some time in the third century B.C.

(144) Ch. 68.

(145) A name often given to illegitimate descendants.

(146) Chan-kuo-ts’ê, ch. 7, p. 5, relates that this man commanded the army of Wei in the battle near the River Kuai, where Han and Chao were beaten. For Tso it writes Ts’o. This battle was in 362 B.C. In the same year Ch’in gained a victory over Wei at Shao -liang, where according to the Wei Annals of the Shih-chi

(cf. Chavannes, Mém. Hist., V, p. 152), the general of Wei, Kung-sun Ts’o, was taken prisoner. This is confirmed in the Ch’in Annals

(Chavannes, op. cit., II, p. 60). As Kung-shu and Kung-sun are really designations of members of the princely family, this must be the same man. The Chao Annals

(Chavannes, op. cit., V, p. 59) say that in the battle, Ts’o, the crown prince, was taken prisoner and the chronological tables merely say: « Our

(i.e: Wei’s) crown prince was taken prisoner ». There is surely a qui-pro-quo here. Probably the fact that some relation of the ruling house was made prisoner was eaaggerated into the report that it was the crown prince; more especially is this likely, as he was actually captured by Ch’i in 341

(cf. Chavannes, op. cit., V, p. 157).

(147) The shu-tzu were charged with the education of the sons from the princely families.

(148) 370-319 B.C.

(the Shih-chi errs in making his reign end in 335; cf. Chavannes, Mém. Hist., V, p. 158, and Maspero, Chine Antique, pp. 397 and 402); as Hui did not bear the title of king before 335, there is an anachronism here.

(149) i.e. who should become chaneollor ?

(150) The same story is given, in simpler form, in the Chan-kuo-ts’ê. ch. 7, pp. 5b, 6a, see below, p. 31, and in the Lü-shih-ch’un-ch’iu. ch. 11, p. 13, which was written in 238 B.C. The latter text runs:

« When Kung-shu Tso of Wei was ill, King Hui went to inquire after his illness and said:

— Your illness is serious; what provision should be made in future for the Altar of the Soil and Grain ?

Kung-shu replied, saying:

— I should wish that Your Majesty would, in state affairs, listen to my yü-shu-tzu Yang. But if Your Majesty cannot decide to listen to him, you should prevent him from leaving the country.

The King did not reply, but when he left, he said to his entourage:

— Is it not déplorable? A man of Kung-shu’s wisdom to tell me to -day that I should, in state affairs, listen to Yang — how stupid !

Now when Kung-shu had died, Kung-sun Yang travelled westward to Ch’in. Duke Hsiao of Ch’in listened to his counsel and so Ch’in became strong and Wei became weak.

(151) For this mandate, cf. Chavannes, op. cit., II, pp. 62, 63. Duke Mu

(659-621) had made large conquests, in the east obtaining from Chin the territory which it had held west of the Yellow River, known as Ho-hsi. Under his successors, Ch’in lost this again, but it remained the fixed policy of its rulers to extend its frontiers to the Yellow River. Duke Hsiao reigned from 361 to 338; as Ssu-ma Ch’ien mentions the mandate right at the beginning of his reign, we may place Kung-sun Yang’s arrival in Ch’in in 361 B.C.

(152) A member of a branch of the ruling house of Ch’u.

(153) For the following speeches, cf. pp. 167-175.

(154) This was in 359 B.C..; cf. the Annals, Chavannes, op. cit., II p. 64: « In the third year, Wei Yang persuaded Duke Hsiao to alter the laws and to reform the penalties; at home, to give special attention to agriculture, and abroad, by a system of rewards and punishments, to encourage people to fight to the death. Duke Hsiao approved, but Kan Lung, Tu Chih and others were opposed to it, and they combined together to fight these plans. Finally, however, Yang’s laws were put into practice; the people suffered from them, but alter three years, they found them convenient. Thereupon, Yang was appointed Tso-shu-chang. These things will be found in the story of the Lord of Shang.

(155) This was the tenth degree in the ranks instituted by the Ch’in’s

(cf. p. 62). From the Annals

(cf. note 154) it will be seen that this appointment followed in 356 B.C. Maspero, La Chine Antique, p. 379, also dates it in 356; Forke, Geschichte der alten Chin. Philosophie, p. 450, errs in saying that in 361 he was made secret councillor

(Geheimer Rat); Ivanov, op. cit., p. LVI, wrongly gives 350 as the date when Wei Yang entered the service of Duke Hsiao.

(156) Cf. the Book, par. 18, p. 287; par. 24, p. 321; and Han Fei-tzu, par. 13, p. 21; par. 43, p. 13; also below, pp. 58 et seq.

(157) i.e. married sons were regarded as heads of different families. Cf. note 165. Wieger, Textes Hist., p. 198 [p. 162, éd. 1929], mistranslates: « Toute famille ayant plus de deux enfants mâles, recevait une prime. »

(158) Cf. p. 62.

(159) Both individuals are otherwise unknown.

(160) Cf. the account of the Chan-kuo-ts’ê, below, p. 32, where the same standing phrase is used. The same thing is said in the description of the beneficial results of Confucius’ administration in Lu. Cf. Chavannes, op. cit., V, p. 327.

(161) A high military rank. This appointment took place in 352 B.C.. Cf. Chavannes, op. cit., II, pp. 64, 65.

(162) An-i is to the north of the sub-prefecture of Hsia in Chieh, in the present province of Shansi. It was the capital of Wei, down to 340. No mention is made of this event in the Wei Annals; the Bamboo Annals, which were written in Wei before 299 B.C., say that in 365 An-i ceased to be the capital

(cf. note 176). The way in which its capture is here mentioned certainly does not give the impression of such an important event as the taking of a capital. Two years before this campaign, in 354, Ch’in had gained another victory over Wei and had regained the town of Shao-liang, won in 640 by Duke Mu, but subsequently lost in 615.

(163) 350 B.C.; cf. Chavannes, op. cit., II, p. 65. Hsien-yang, in the prefecture of Hsi-an, in modern Shensi, remained the capital to the end of the Ch’in dynasty. The pillars mentioned here were placed in front of the gate and mandates were affixed to them… They were called [] because this was the name of the old capital of Chin, of which Wei was one of the three succession states, and it therefore commemorated the victories over Wei. Cf. Maspero, op. cit., p. 382.

(164) Yung, corresponding to Feng-hsiang-fu in modern Shensi, was the capital of Ch’in from 677 to 383; but Duke Hsien had already transferred the seat of government to Yo-yang, 15 li north of Lin-t’ung -hsien, in Hsi-an-fu, Shensi. Maspero, op. cit., p. 381, following a mistake of Chavannes, corrected by himself

(op. cit., II, p. 614), writes Li-yang.

(165) This was a further step in the direction of breaking up the patriarchal family-system, already initiated by the order that double taxes had to be paid where there were two men or more in a household. Cf. note 157.

(166) The hsien was originally larger than the chün, but the Ch’in reversed the relationship between these two terms. A hsien, under the Ch’in and Han dynasties, was the largest provincial unit within the chün

(which may be compared with the modern sheng) and corresponds therefore with the later fu rather than with the later hsien. Cf. Chavannes, op. cit., II, pp. 530, 531. This measure aimed at centralization, as the towns were small feudal domains which probably enjoyed a great measure of independence. The Annals wrongly speak of 41 districts. A ling, prefect, administered districts consisting of not less than ten thousand hearths; the smaller districts were administered by a chang, chief.

(167) The paths from north to south and those from east to west were opened up, i.e. for agriculture. The great reform ascribed to Shang Yang was the abolishment of the artificial, the ching system

(cf. p. 41), and consequently the paths, running in squares, became superfluous. I take [] in the sense which the T’ung -chien-kang-mu, ch. I, p. 12, gives to it, and which is also followed by Chavannes, op. cit., II, p. 66. The expression is difficult. Escarra and Germain in their La conception de la loi et les théories des légistes à la veille des Ts’in

(1926), p. 28, take [] in the sense of « instituting ». So does Wieger, Textes Hist., p. 199 [p. 163, éd. 1929], in rendering the phrase by “il le remplaca par un réseau de canaux d’irrigation, le long desquels s’alignaient les propriétés ».

(168) The reforms made new taxes necessary. According to the Annals

(Chavannes, op. cit., p. 64), these were levied for the first time in 348. For a discussion of these taxes, see p. 46.

(169) Cf. above, p. 16. This must have been in 346.

(170) This was in 342; the five years seem to be counted from the last event onwards. In order to understand this sentence, one should remember that, in the meantime, the prestige of Ch’in’s neighbour, Wei, who had threatened for a time to become very strong, had been seriously damaged, and that Ch’in had, in 349, even sent its troops through Wei’s territory for a campaign against Ch’i. The Ch’in Annals say that in 343 the Son of Heaven had conferred on Duke Hsiao the title of leader. The sending of the sacrificial meat, which came from the sacrifices to Wen-wang and Wu-wang, was the solemn confirmation of this dignity. In 342, Duke Hsiao called the feudal lords to a meeting at Feng-chih

(in the present Hsiang-fu-sien, in K’ai -feng-fu, in Honan), and was there recognized by them in this position. The Bamboo Annals place this meeting in 345. According to the Annals of the Chou

(Chavannes, op. cit., I, p. 304), Ch’in had assembled the princes at the capital of Chou in 344. This meeting at Feng-chi evidently made Wei Yang first known to the other states, for we find in the Annals of Ch’i

(Chavannes, op. cit., V, p. 255), in immediate connection with the conferring of the leadership on Duke Hsiao, the notice that the latter, in 342, took Yang, Lord of Shang, into his service.

(171) Han, which had been Wei’s ally, broke the alliance after the meeting at Feng -chih, probably realizing that Wei’s friendship was of little value. When Wei, thereupon, sent troops to reduce it to allegiance, Ch’i came to Han’s rescue and Wei suffered a severe defeat at Ma-ling, identified with a place south-east, of Yuan-ch’eng, in Ta -ming-fu, Chihli, or with a place north-east of Chüan-ch’eng, east of Pu -chou, in Shantung. For these events, cf. Chavannes, op. cit., V, pp. 155 et seq.

(172) i.e. these relations are vital. Cf. the same expression in Han Fei-tzu, ch. 1, par. 2, p. 17.

(173) Cf. note 162.

(174) Here the policy, which Ch’in followed, is clearly outlined. Wei stretched right across the mountainous region from east to west. If Ch’in could succeed in occupying the Yellow River, which here runs from north to south, and the mountain passes, it would be safe against attacks from the east and would have its points d’appui for invasions of the eastern S tates. The intelligent anticipation of the later course of events, in this speech, might lead one to suppose that it was written after Ch’in’s success. On the other hand, there is nothing impossible in the supposition that a clear-sighted statesman would have consciously guided Ch’in s policy along these lines.

(175) The Annals of Wei

(Chavannes, op. cit., V, p. 157) state that Wei was attacked by Ch’in, Chao, and Ch’i toge ther, and mention the ambush laid for Prince Ang. Another version of this incident is given in Lü-shih-ch’un-ch’iu. ch. 22, pp. 4, 5. « Kung-sun Yang was net a near blood-relation of the prince of Ch’in, nor was he an old friend, but he was employed because of his capacities. Desiring to make himself a success, by some way or other, he found he could do so only by an aggressive policy. Thereupon, he became the general of Ch’in and attacked Wei. Wei dispatched Prince Ang, as general, to meet him. New Kung-sun Yang, when he lived in Wei, had naturally been friendly with the prince, se he sent a messenger to Prince Ang, saying:

— It has been for your sake that I have travelled abroad and have tried to obtain a position of honour. New Ch’in has made me its gen eral and Wei has ordered you to meet me, but how could we bear to fight against each other ! Tell your master this and I shall also speak to my lord, and let us both make an armistice. Hereupon, when they were on the point of withdrawing the armies, he sent another messenger to the prince, saying:

— If we now withdraw, it is not certain when we shall again meet. I should wish to sit once more with you, in order to take leave.

The prince consented to this, and although the officers of Wei disputed his decision and advised him not to go, he paid no heed, and subsequently sat with Kung-sun Yang. But the latter had set soldiers, chariots, and horsemen in ambush for the purpose, and took the prince prisoner.

The Bamboo Annals, particularly important for the history of Wei, say that in the 9th month of the 27th year of King Hsien

(341), Wei Yang of Ch’in attacked “our”

(i.e. Wei’s) western frontier, and that, in the 10th month, the King engaged in battle with Wei Yang, but “our” army was beaten and fled.

(176) Cf. note 162. This was a complete success for Ch’in. The new capital of Wei, Ta -liang,

(the modern K’ai -feng-fu, in Honan), removed the centre of Wei’s power far towards the east. The Bamboo Annals place the transfer of capital as early as 365; this may have been a temporary removal, which became definite in 340.

(177) Cf. p. 9.

(178) The modern Shang-chou in Shensi. The Ch’in Annals add that Yang was appointed lieh-hou, feudal lord. The Ch’u Annals

(Chavannes, op. cit., IV, p. 384) say that Yang received Yü

(or Wu) and Shang in fief. Yü was east of modern Nei-hsiang-hsien, in Nan-yang-fu, Honan, adjoining the territory of Shang. See also below where Yü is mentioned by Chao Liang. The Bamboo Annals, for the same year, say that Ch’in conferred on Wei Yang a fief in Wu, of which the name was altered to Shang. Wu is the territory now comprised by Yen-shih-hsien and Yung-ning-hsien, which is a little to the north-east of the region mentioned above. This slight divergence in detail gives this testimony great independent value.

(179) Not known elsewhere. This interview is a famous piece of literature, often reproduced in anthologies.

(180) An unknown individual.

(181) i.e. “give you a position”.

(182) This dictum of Confucius is not otherwise known.

(183) i.e. the great legendary emperor Shun.

(184) i.e. the well-known Po-li Hsi, the councillor of Duke Mu of Ch’in. Cf. Mencius, V, a, 9, and Chavannes, op. cit., II, pp. 26, 27. Duke Mu had in 655 offered a ransum of five ram’s skins for him, hence his nickname, ku being a black sheep. The mention of Po-li Hsi’s nick - name by Shang Yang naturally suggested the comparison in Chao Liang’s reply.

(185) i.e. Ch’u.

(186) This is evidently the tradition, contradicted by Mencius, that he sold himself for five ram’s skins.

(187) See for the exploits of Po-li Hsi and Duke Mu, the Ch’in Annals

(Chavannes, op. cit., II, pp. 25 et seq.). Duke Mu’s achievements were the ideal before the eyes of Duke Hsiao and Shang Yang.

(188) A region in the south-west, which had its centre in the present Chung-ch’ing, in Szech’uan.

(189) For Duke Mu’s conquests over the Jung, cf. Chavannes, op. cit., II, pp. 44, 45.

(190) Yu-yü was an envoy of the king of the Jung, whom Duke Mu induced to enter his own service, and assisted by whose advice, he beat the Jung in 623. For details, see Chavannes, op. cit., II, pp. 41-44.

(191) i.e. he left well-filled granaries.

(192) Wieger, op. cit., p. 201 [p.164, éd. 1929], wrongly makes this passage refer to Wei Yang.

(193) Like a prince, thus usurping the power of the ruler.

(194) A title used by ruling princes, as it is characteristic of a ruling prince that he has no father.

(195) Shih-ching, ed. Legge, p. 85.

(196) The tutor whose nose had been sliced off in 346. From the “eight years”, we may conclude that this speech was supposed to have been made in 339. Cf. also below: « Five months afterwards, Duke Hsiao died »; that was in 338.

(197) Supposed to have been a colleague of Kung-sun Chia.

(198) A lost ode.

(199) Supposed to be a sign of great strength.

(200) Of the three men on each war-chariot, the one standing most to the right-hand, armed with a lance.

(201) Cf. Han Fei-tzu, ch. 5, par. 18, p. 16, where mention is made of the precautions against attempts on his life, taken by Shang Yang.

(202) Not now to be found in the Shu-ching.