© 2004 by the Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia
Digization was based on a photocopy (of the copy of the book held by University of Virginia Library).
UNESCO collection of representative works: Chinese series.
Han Fei Tzŭ's name also in Chinese on title page.
"The biography of Han Fei Tzŭ, by Ssŭ-ma Ch'ien": v. 1, p. [xxvii]-xxix.
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's The Complete Works of Han Fei Tzŭwith
Collected Commentaries
Textual Criticisms of Han Fei Tzŭ's
Works
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
Wuhan University Quarterly Journal of Liberal
Arts,
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 Works The
Biography of Han Fei Tzŭ, by Ssŭ-ma Ch`ien, Wang
Hsien-ch`ien's Preface to "The Complete Works of Han Fei
Tzŭwith Collected Commentaries", and Wang Hsien-shen's own
Foreword 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.
On 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.
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 of The Book
of Lord Shang, that "a translation is a 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
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 his Principles 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.
On account of both technical requirements and
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
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
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
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
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
The last, but by no means the least, important point
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,
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,
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"
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
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.
In The 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 Geschichte 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.
In the same year, 1927, appeared Henri Maspero's
La 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's Ancient 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 of The 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.
In 1930, came out L. T. Chen's English translation of
Liang Ch`i-ch`ao's History 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
Last year appeared Derk Bodde's English rendering of
Fung Yu-lan's History of Chinese Philosophy: The Period of
the Philosophers, whose manuscript the author is alleged to have read and
approved. It is a well-earned shih
shu
Brief 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 a History of
Chinese Philosophy by some other Chinese scholar appears comparable to
Windelband's Geschichte 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.
Han Fei was one of the princes of
the Han State. He was fond of studies in penology, epistemology, law, and
Solitary 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
Vide infra,
chap. xii. Here I have purposely omitted Ssŭ-ma Ch`ien's citation of Han
Fei Tzŭ's "Difficulties in the Way of Persuasion".
Someone had introduced his Works in Ch`in. Reading
the Works, Solitary Indignation and Five 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 b.c.). . . .
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,
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
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
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, 22nd Year of Kuang-hsü
(January, 1897).
The Works of Han Fei
Tzŭin the remote past had Yin Chi-chang's Commentary
Records of Arts and Letters in the History of T`ang.
Commentary has been lost long before. During the Yüan
Dynasty (a.d. 1279-1367) Ho Huan said that Li Tsan's
Commentary
a.d. 1165-1173)
a.d.
960-1279) bears no name of the editor. Nobody has as yet disclosed the
anonymity. All the T`ai-p`ing Imperial
Library,
Literary Works on Facts and Varieties,
Classical Selections for Beginners,
As regards these early commentaries, they do not
completely cover the whole works of the author, and,
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, 21st Year of Kuang-hsü (November, 1895).
臣聞：「不知而言，不智；知而不言，不忠。」為人臣不忠，當死；言而不當，亦當死。雖然，臣願悉言所聞，唯大王裁其罪。
Thy servant has heard: "Who knows not but speaks, is not wise. Who knows but speaks not, is not loyal. Any minister, if not loyal, must be condemned to death. If what he speaks be not true, he must be condemned to death, too." However, thy servant begs to speak all he has heard and entreats Your Majesty to convict him of whatever crime.
臣聞：天下陰燕陽魏，連荊固齊，收韓而成從，將西面以與（秦強）〔強秦〕為難。臣竊笑之。 世有三亡，而天下得之。其此之謂乎！臣聞之曰：「以亂攻治者亡，以邪攻正者亡，〔以逆攻順者亡〕。」
Thy servant has heard, All-under-Heaven
b.c.
今天下之府庫不盈，囷倉空虛，悉其士民，張軍數十百萬，其頓首戴羽為將軍，斷死於前不至千人，皆以言死。 白刃在前，斧鑕在後，而卻走不能死也。非其士民不能死也，上不能故也。言賞則不與，言罰則不行，賞罰不信，故士民不死也。
At present, the treasuries and armouries of the
allies are not full; their granaries
今秦出號令而行賞罰，有功無功相事也。出其父母懷衽之中，生未嘗見寇耳。 聞戰，頓足徒裼，犯白刃，蹈鑪炭，斷死於前者皆是也。夫斷死與斷生者不同，而民為之者， 是貴奮死也。夫一人奮死可以對十，十可以對百，百可以對千，千可以對萬，萬可以剋天下矣。
Now Ch`in issues verbal commands and written orders
and carries out rewards and punishments accordingly, both men of merit and of
no merit are clearly distinguished
今秦地折長補短，方數千里，名師數十百萬。秦之號令賞罰，地形利害， 天下莫若也。以此與天下，天下不足兼而有也。是故秦戰未嘗不剋，攻未嘗不取，所當未嘗不破， 開地數千里，此其大功也。
In these days, Ch`in has a territory, which, if the
wider places are cut off to fill up the narrower places, extends over several
thousand square li, plus a famous army counting by
然而兵甲頓，士民病，蓄積索，田疇荒，囷倉虛，四鄰諸侯不服，霸王之名不成。 此無異故，其謀臣皆不盡其忠也。
However, of late, so dull are her weapons and
armour growing, so ill are her gentry and commoners becoming, so scanty are her
savings and hoardings become, so fallow are her fields and arable lands
resting, so empty are her granaries and storehouses, that her neighbouring
feudal lords do not obey her and the title of Hegemonic Ruler
b.c.) it
was used as the style of a ruler first successful in foreign conquests and
later capable of respecting the authorities of the Son of Heaven and protecting
the rights of weaker and smaller states. The English renderings by Giles and
Dubs, therefore, seem to suit the connotation of the term of this period better
than Mei's. During the Era of the Warring States (b.c.), however, any
feudal lord who could emerge to be the strongest among all paid no respect to
the central authorities and gave no protection to any weaker and smaller State.
What he aimed at was the complete
臣敢言之。
Thy servant dares to speak:—
往者齊南破荊，東破宋，西服秦，北破燕，中使韓、魏，土地廣而兵強， 戰剋攻取，詔令天下。齊之清濟濁河，足以為限；長城巨防，足以為塞。齊，五戰之國也， 一戰不剋而無齊。由此觀之，夫戰者，萬乘之存亡也。
In times gone by, Ch`i in the south routed Ching,
in the east routed Sung, in the west subdued Ch`in, in the north routed Yen,
and in the centre put Han and Wey to use. Thus, with vast territory and strong
soldiers she won in warfare and took in attack, thus becoming able to enforce
her edicts and decrees throughout All-under-Heaven. Of Ch`i, the limpid Chi
Stream and the muddy Yellow River sufficed to make boundaries; the long walls
and the large dikes
b.c., the 31st year of King Nan of Chou, when
General Yo Yi of Yen crushed the entire forces of Ch`i
且〔臣〕聞之曰：「削（）〔株〕無遺根，無與禍鄰，禍乃不存。」 秦與荊人戰，大破荊，襲郢，取洞庭、五（湖）〔渚〕、江南。荊王君臣亡走，東服於陳 。當此時也，隨荊以兵，則荊可舉；荊可舉，則〔其〕民足貪也，地足利也，東以弱齊、燕， 中以凌三晉。然則是一舉而霸王之名可成也，四鄰諸侯可朝也；而謀臣不為，引軍而退， 復與荊人為和。令荊人得收亡國，聚散民，立社稷主，置宗廟；令率天下西面以與秦為難。 此固以失霸王之道一矣。
Besides, thy servant
b.c., the 37th year of King Nan of Chou, when
General Pai Ch`i of Ch`in crushed the entire forces of Ch`u.b.c., the
beginning year of the Era of the Warring States, were sometime called "Three
Chins".
天下又比周而軍華下，大王以詔破之，兵至梁郭下。圍梁數旬，則梁可拔； 拔梁，則魏可舉；舉魏，則荊、趙之意絕；荊、趙之意絕，則趙危；趙危而荊狐疑；東以弱齊、燕， 中以凌三晉。然則是一舉而霸王之名可成也，四鄰諸侯可朝也。而謀臣不為，引軍而退，復與魏氏為和。 令魏氏反收亡國，聚散民，立社稷主，置宗廟，令〔率天下西面以與秦為難〕。此固以失霸王之道二矣。
Another time,
b.c., the 42nd year of King Nan, the 34th year of King
Chao of Ch`in.b.c.) of Ch`in.
前者穰侯之治秦也，用一國之兵而欲以成兩國之功，是故兵終身暴露於外， 士民疲病於內，霸王之名不成。此固以失霸王之道三矣。
In the days of old, Marquis Hsiang,
b.c. by King Chao of Ch`in.
趙氏，中央之國也，雜民所居也，其民輕而難用也。號令不治，賞罰不信，地形不便， 下不能盡其民力。彼固亡國之形也，而不憂民萌，悉其士民軍於長平之下，以爭韓上黨。大王以詔破之， 拔武安。當是時也，趙氏上下不相親也，貴賤不相信也。然則邯鄲不守。拔邯鄲，筦山東（可聞）〔河間〕， 引軍而去，西攻脩武，踰（華）〔羊腸〕，（絳）〔降代〕、上黨。代（四）〔三〕十六縣，上黨（七十） 〔十七〕縣，不用一領甲，不苦一士民，此皆秦有也。（以）代、上黨不戰而畢為秦矣，東陽、河外不戰而畢反為齊矣， 中山、呼沱以北不戰而畢為燕矣。然則是趙舉，趙舉則韓亡，韓亡則荊、魏不能獨立，荊、魏不能獨立， 則是一舉而壞韓、蠹魏、（拔）〔挾〕荊，東以弱齊、（強）燕，決白馬之口以沃魏氏，是一舉而三晉亡，從者敗也。 大王垂拱以須之，天下編隨而服矣，霸王之名可成。而謀臣不為，引軍而退，復與趙氏為和。夫以大王之明，秦兵之強， 棄霸王之業，地曾不可得，乃取欺於亡國，是謀臣之拙也。
The Chao Clan, indeed, holds the central state
inhabited by heterogeneous populations. Their people are frivolous
b.c.Schemes of
the Warring States has 降 in place of 絳.b.c.
且夫趙當亡而不亡，秦當霸而不霸，天下固以量秦之謀臣一矣。乃復悉士卒以攻邯鄲， 不能拔也，棄甲兵弩，戰竦而〔卻〕，天下固已量秦力二矣。軍乃引而復，并於（孚）〔李〕下，大王又并軍而至， 與戰不能剋之也，又不能反，（運）〔軍〕罷而去，天下固量秦力三矣。內者量吾謀臣，外者極吾兵力。由是觀之， 臣以為天下之從，幾不（能）〔難〕矣。內者，吾甲兵頓，士民病，蓄積索，田疇荒，囷倉虛。外者，天下皆比意甚固。 願大王有以慮之也。
Indeed, Chao doomed to ruin did not go to ruin;
Ch`in deserving Hegemony did not attain Hegemony. This was the first reason why
All-under-Heaven came to penetrate the ability of Ch`in's state counsellors.
Again, when Ch`in marched out all her officers and soldiers to launch a fresh
attack upon Han-tan, her men failed to take that city, threw away their armour
and
b.c.
且臣聞之曰：「戰戰栗栗，日慎一日。苟慎其道，天下可有。」何以知其然也？ 昔者紂為天子，將率天下甲兵百萬，左飲於淇溪，右飲於洹谿，淇水竭而洹水不流，以與周武王為難。 武王將素甲三千，戰一日而破紂之國，禽其身，據其地而有其民，天下莫傷。知伯率三國之眾以攻趙襄主於晉陽， 決水而灌之三月，城且拔矣；襄主鑽龜筮占兆，以視利害，何國可降。乃使其臣張孟談，於是乃潛（於）行而出， 〔反〕知伯之約，得兩國之眾，以攻知伯，禽其身，以復襄主之初。
Besides, thy servant has heard the saying: "Be
alarmed and trembling and act more carefully day after day. If thou act
carefully in due manner, thou mayest hold Historical
Records has 張孟同 in place of 張孟談.b.c. A rather detailed narration of the whole event is
found in Chap. X.
今秦地折長補短，方數千里，名師數十百萬。秦國之號令賞罰，地形利害，天下莫如也。〔以〕此與天下，（何）〔可〕兼〔而〕有也。 臣昧死願望見大王，言所以破天下之從，舉趙、亡韓，臣荊、魏，親齊、燕，以成霸王之名，朝四鄰諸侯之道。大王誠聽其說，一舉而天下之從不破， 趙不舉，韓不亡，荊、魏不臣，齊、燕不親，霸王之名不成，四鄰諸侯不朝，大王斬臣以徇國，以為王謀不忠者〔戒〕也。
In these days, Ch`in has a territory, which, if the
wider
Han Fei
Tzŭ's Memorial to the King of Ch`in
韓事秦三十餘年，出則為扞蔽，入則為蓆薦。秦特出銳師取（韓）地而〔韓〕隨之，怨懸於天下，功歸於強秦。
"Han has served Ch`in for upwards of thirty years.
To Ch`in she has formed a shielding barrier in case of war and made a restful
carpet in time of peace. Thus, whenever Ch`in sends out crack troops to conquer
new territory and Han
且夫韓入貢職，與郡縣無異也。今（日）臣竊聞貴臣之計，舉兵將伐韓。 夫趙氏聚士卒，養從〔徒〕，欲贅天下之兵，明秦不弱，則諸侯必滅宗廟，欲西面行其意， 非一日之計也。今釋趙之患，而攘內臣之韓，則天下明趙氏之計矣。
"Further, since Han pays tribute and renders
services to Ch`in, she does not differ from a district or county of Ch`in. Of
late, however, thy servant has in secret heard of the scheme of Your Majesty's
ministers to raise an army to invade Han. Verily it is the Chaos that have been
recruiting officers and soldiers and supporting the advocates of the
Perpendicular Union with a view to uniting the troops of All-under-Heaven. And,
with the clear understanding that unless Ch`in be weakened, the feudal lords
would eventually see their ancestral shrines ruined, they plan to turn west and
accomplish their task. This is not such a scheme as could be devised in the
brief space of one day. Now supposing
夫韓，小國也，而以應天下四擊，主辱臣苦，上下相與同憂久矣。脩守備， 戒強敵，有蓄積，築城池以守固。今伐韓，未可一年而滅，拔一城而退，則權輕於天下，天下摧我兵矣。 韓叛，則魏應之，趙據齊以為原，如此，則以韓、魏資趙假齊，以固其從，而以與爭強，趙之福而秦之禍也。
"Verily Han is a small country. To stand the
pressure by All-under-Heaven from the four directions, the sovereign has to
bear disgrace and the ministers have to undergo hardships, high and low having
thus for years shared griefs with each other in mending garrisons, in making
provision against strong foes, in keeping hoardings and savings, and in
building walls and moats, in order to solidify their defence works. Therefore,
though Ch`in starts invading Han now, she may be unable to take her in a year.
Should Ch`in
夫進而擊趙不能取，退而攻韓弗能拔，則陷銳之卒懃於野戰，負任之旅罷於內攻， 則合群苦弱以敵而共二萬乘，非所以亡（趙）〔韓〕之心也。均如貴（人）〔臣〕之計，則秦必為天下兵質矣。 陛下雖以金石相弊，則兼天下之日未也。
"Indeed, if Ch`in on going forward to raid Chao
cannot take and on turning backward to attack Han cannot win, her troops,
however invulnerable, will become tired of field operations abroad and her
transport corps will fall short of supplies
今賤臣之（遇）愚計：使人使荊，重幣用事之臣，明趙之所以欺秦者；與魏質以安其心， 從韓而伐趙，趙雖與齊為一，不足患也。二國事畢，則（轉）〔韓〕可以移書定也。是我一舉二國有亡形， 則荊、魏又必自服矣。
"Now, it is the stupid suggestion of thy humble
servant to send an envoy to Ching and, by bribing the ministers in charge of
her state affairs with precious presents, convince them of the reasons why Chao
has been conspiring against Ch`in, and at the same time send a hostage to Wey
to make her feel at ease, and then
故曰：「兵者，凶器也。」不可不審用也。以秦與趙敵衡，加以齊，今又背韓， 而未有以堅荊、魏之心。夫一戰而不勝，則禍搆矣。計者，所以定事也，不可不察也。
"Hence the saying: `Weapons are dangerous
implements, and should not be employed at random.' For illustration, Ch`in in
vying with Chao has to challenge Ch`i and
。（韓^〔趙〕、秦強弱，在今年耳。且趙與諸侯陰謀久矣。夫一動而弱於諸侯， 危事也；為計而使諸侯有意（伐）〔我〕之心，至殆也。見二，非所以強於諸侯也。臣竊願陛下之幸熟圖之！ 攻伐而使從者（聞）〔間〕焉，不可悔也。
"The turning-point
Li Ssŭ's Memorial to the
King of Ch`in
:—
詔以韓客之所上書，書言韓子之未可舉，下臣斯。〔臣斯〕甚以為不然。
"Under His Majesty's edict the memorial submitted
by the envoy from Han, in which he maintained that Han should not be taken, was
handed down to thy servant, Ssŭ. Thy servant, Ssŭ,
秦之有韓，若人之有腹心之病也。虛處則然，若居濕地，著而不去，以極走則發矣。 夫韓雖臣於秦，未嘗不為秦病。今若有卒報之事，韓不可信也。秦與趙為難，荊蘇使齊，未知何如。 以臣觀之，則齊、趙之交未必以荊蘇絕也。若不絕，是悉（趙）〔秦〕而應二萬乘也。夫韓不服秦之義而服於強也， 今專於齊、趙，則韓必為腹心之病而發矣。韓與荊有謀，諸侯應之，則秦必復見崤塞之患。
"What stomach and heart diseases are to man, that
is Han to Ch`in. The man having stomach and heart diseases ordinarily only
feels like standing in the mud which is sticky and cannot be brushed off; but
as soon as he starts running b.c. under the command of Lord Hsin-ling of Wey the
allied forces of Chao, Ch`u, Han, Wey, and Yen defeated the Ch`in invaders and
drove them as far back as the Pass of the Armour Gorge.
非之來也，未必不以其能存韓也為重於韓也。辯說屬辭，飾非詐謀，以釣利於秦， 而以韓利闚陛下。夫秦、韓之交親，則非重矣，此自便之計也。 臣視非之言，文其淫說靡辯，才甚。臣恐陛下淫非之辯而聽其盜心，因不詳察事情。
"Fei came here most probably with the intention to
elevate
今以臣愚議：秦發兵而未名所伐，則韓之用事者以事秦為計矣。臣斯請往見韓王，使來入見； 大王見，因內其身而勿遣，稍召其社稷之臣，以與韓人為市，則韓可深割也。因令象武發東郡之卒， 闚兵於境上而未名所之，則齊人懼而從蘇之計。是我兵未出而勁韓以威擒，強齊以義從矣。聞於諸侯也，趙氏破膽， 荊人狐疑，必有忠計。荊人不動，魏不足患也，則諸侯可蠶食而盡，趙氏可得與敵矣。願陛下幸察愚臣之計，無忽。
"Now thy servant has devised a stupid scheme as
follows: Suppose Ch`in sends out troops without announcing the object of the
expedition. Then the ministers in charge of Han's state affairs will consider
serving Ch`in a good policy. Then thy servant will ask for Your Majesty's
permission to interview the King of Han and make him come to visit Your
Majesty. When he comes, Your Majesty retains him and never sends him away, but,
instead, summons a few important ministers
秦遂遣斯使韓也。 李斯往詔韓王，未得見，因上書曰：
Ch`in accordingly sent Ssŭ to the court of Han. Li Ssŭ went to interview the King of Han, but could not have an audience of him. Therefore he sent in a memorial saying:—
：「昔秦、韓戮力一意以不相侵，天下莫敢犯，如此者數世矣。 前時五諸侯嘗相與共伐韓，秦發兵以救之。韓居中國，地不能滿千里，而所以得與諸侯班位於天下， 君臣相保者，以世世相教事秦之力也。
"Of old, when Ch`in and Han combined their forces
and united their purposes to refrain from invading each other,
b.c.li. Thanks to the traditional policy she has pursued
from generation to generation to serve Ch`in,
先時五諸侯共伐秦，韓反與諸侯先為鴈行，以嚮秦軍於（闕）〔關〕下矣。 諸侯兵困力極，無柰何，諸侯兵罷。杜倉相秦，起兵發將以報天下之怨而（失）〔先〕攻荊。 荊令尹患之，曰：『夫韓以秦為不義，而與秦兄弟共苦天下。已又背秦，先為鴈行以攻關。韓則居中國，展轉不可知。』 天下共割韓上地十城以謝秦，解其兵。
"Another time, however, when the five feudal lords
launched a joint-attack upon Ch`in, Han in her turn joined them and stood at
the front of the allied line to meet the forces of Ch`in beneath the Pass of
the Armour Gorge.
b.c.b.c. General Pai Ch`i captured the capital of
Ching.
夫韓嘗一背秦而國迫地侵，兵弱至今，所以然者，聽姦（人）〔臣〕之浮說，不權事實， 故雖殺戮姦臣，不能使韓復強。
"Thus, ever since Han turned against Ch`in, the country has been oppressed, her territory invaded, and her army weakened, till the present day. The reason therefor is: Her rulers have been listening to the flippant theories of wicked ministers but have never considered actual conditions. Even if the wicked ministers be put to death, it would be impossible for Han to recover her former strength.
「今趙欲聚兵士，卒以秦為事，使人來借道，言欲伐秦，其勢必先韓而後秦。 且臣聞之：『脣亡，則齒寒。』夫秦、韓不得無同憂，其形可見。
"At present, Chao is massing officers and soldiers
魏欲發兵以攻韓，秦使人將使者於韓。今秦王使臣斯來而不得見，恐左右襲曩姦臣之計， 使韓復有亡地之患。臣斯不〔得〕見，請歸報，秦、韓之交必絕矣。斯之來使，以奉秦王之歡心，願效便計， 豈陛下所以逆賤臣者邪？臣斯願得一見，前進道愚計，退就葅戮，願陛下有意焉。
"Formerly, when Wey was about to despatch troops to
attack Han, Ch`in ordered guards to escort her good-will envoys to Han.
今殺臣於韓，則大王不足以強，若不聽臣之計，則禍必搆矣。秦發兵不留行， 而韓之社稷憂矣。臣斯暴身於韓之市，則雖欲察賤臣愚忠之計，不可得已。邊鄙殘，國固守， 鼓鐸之聲於耳，而乃用臣斯之計，晚矣。
"Now supposing Your Majesty executed thy servant in
Han, it would not do Your Majesty any good. Moreover, since Your Majesty turns
no ear to thy servant's counsels, there will be fostered the seed of
catastrophes. For once Ch`in marches her troops out without stopping, Han will
then feel concern for the safety of her Altar of the Spirits of Land and Grain.
After thy servant, Ssŭ, has had his corpse exposed in the market-place in
the capital of Han, though Your Majesty might begin to think about thy
servant's stupid but loyal counsels, it would be impossible to prevent
disaster. After the frontiers have been raided and only the defence work of the
capital is held and when the sounds of drums and bells are filling
且夫韓之兵於天下可知也，今又背強秦。夫棄城而敗軍，則反掖之寇必襲城矣。 城盡則聚散，〔聚散〕則無軍矣。城固守，則秦必興兵而圍王一都；道不通，則難必謀，其勢不救。 左右計之者不用，願陛下熟圖之。
"Moreover, though the limits of Han's military
strength are generally known throughout the world, she is now betraying Ch`in.
Indeed, if cities are evacuated and troops defeated, rebels among the rear
forces will infallibly raid the capital. When the capital falls, the civilians
will scatter. When the civilians scatter, no more troops can be recruited. Even
though the capital might be well defended, yet Ch`in would send out all her men
to besiege the only city of Your Majesty. When its communication with the
outside world is cut off, it will be impossible to accomplish any scheme, till
the situation becomes unsavable. As the consideration of the whole situation by
the chamberlains is not thorough,
若臣斯之所言有不應事實者，願大王幸使得畢辭於前，乃就吏誅不晚也。 秦王飲食不甘，遊觀不樂，意專在圖趙，使臣斯來言，願得身〔見〕，因急與陛下有計也。
"If what thy servant, Ssŭ, has said contains anything that does not coincide with actual facts, may Your Majesty allow him to complete his memorial before the throne! After that it will not be too late to put him to death through official censure. The King of Ch`in neither indulges in drinking and eating nor amuses himself with travelling and sight-seeing, but is whole-heartedly scheming against Chao. Therefore he has sent thy servant, Ssŭ, here to speak on his behalf. Thy servant has petitioned for a personal interview because he feels he must parley with Your Majesty on matters of urgent importance.
今使臣不通，則韓之信未可知也。夫秦必釋趙之患而移兵於韓，願陛下幸復察圖之，而賜臣報決。」
"Now, if Your Majesty grants no audience to thy servant, the faith of Han never will be proved. Verily Ch`in will cease the campaign against Chao and move the army against Han. May Your Majesty, therefore, kindly ponder over the matter again and again and grant thy servant a definite answer?"
臣非非難言也，所以難言者：言順比滑澤，洋洋纚纚然，則見以為華而不實； 敦厚恭祗，鯁固慎完，則見以為拙而不倫；多言繁稱，連類比物，則見以為虛而無用；總微說約， 徑省而不飾，則見以為劌而不辯；激急親近，探知人情，則見以為譖而不讓；閎大廣博，妙遠不測， 則見以為夸而無用；家計小談，以具數言，則見以為陋；言而近世，辭不悖逆，則見以為貪生而諛上； 言而遠俗，詭躁人間，則見以為誕；捷敏辯給，繁於文采，則見以為史；殊釋文學，以質性言， 則見以為鄙；時稱《詩》《書》，道法往古，則見以為誦。此臣非之所以難言而重患也。
Thy servant,
Fei, is by no means diffident of speaking. As to why he has to hesitate in
speaking: if his speeches are compliant and harmonious, magnificent and
orderly, he is then regarded as ostentatious and insincere; if his speeches are
sincere and courteous, straightforward and careful, he is then regarded as
awkward and unsystematic; if his speeches are widely cited and subtly composed,
frequently illustrated and continuously analogized, he is then regarded as
empty and unpractical; if his speeches summarize minute points and present
general ideas, being thus plain and concise, he is then regarded as simple and
not discerning; if his speeches are very personally observing and
Books of Poetry
and History from time to time and act on the teachings of the former
sages, he is then regarded as a book chantor.
故度量雖正，未必聽也；義理雖全，未必用也。大王若以此不信， 則小者以為毀訾誹謗，大者患禍災害死亡及其身。
Therefore, weights and measures, however accurate,
are not always adopted; doctrines and principles, however perfect, are not
always practised. Should His Majesty
故子胥善謀而吳戮之，仲尼善說而匡圍之，管夷吾實賢而魯囚之。 故此三大夫，豈不賢哉！而三君不明也。
For example, Tzŭ-hsü
b.c. In 511 b.c. he
successfully persuaded King Ho-lü of Wu to invade Ch`u and thereby avenged his
father and brother. Following the death of King Ho-lü he served King Fu-ch`a.
In 494 b.c. he helped the young king wage a
victorious war of revenge with King Kou-chien of Yüeh. Subsequently, because of
Pai P`i's slanders against him, he was ordered by King Fu-ch`a to commit
suicide with the famous Shu-lou sword (484 b.c.).b.c. As Hsiao-pai entered the capital first and ascended
the throne, Duke Chuang of Lu, who had been supporting Prince Chiu, suddenly
changed his mind, killed the prince, and sent Kuan Chung in a prisoner cart to
Ch`i. In Ch`i he was released by Hsiao-pai, then Duke Huan, and appointed Prime
Minister.
上古有湯，至聖也；伊尹，至智也。夫至智說至聖，然且七十說而不受， 身執鼎俎為庖宰，昵近習親，而湯乃僅知其賢而用之。故曰：「以至智說至聖， 未必至而見受，伊尹說湯是也。以智說愚必不聽，文王說紂是也。」
In remote antiquity, when T`ang
故文王說紂〔而紂〕囚之；翼侯炙；鬼侯腊；比干剖心；梅伯醢；
Thus, just as King Wên attempted to persuade Chow
and was put in jail,
b.c.).Historical
Records has 九 in place of 鬼.
夷吾束縛；而曹羈奔陳；伯里子道乞；傅說轉鬻；孫子臏腳於魏； 吳起（收）〔抆〕泣於岸門，痛西河之為秦，卒枝解於楚；公叔痤言國器反為悖， 公孫鞅奔秦；關龍逄斬；萇弘分胣；尹子於棘；司馬子期死而浮於江；田明辜射； 宓子賤、西門豹不而死人手；董安于死而陳於市；宰予不免於田常；范雎折脅於魏。
Furthermore, I-wu was bound with chains. Ts`ao Ch`i
b.c. he waged a successful war with Wey, during
which P`ang Chüan was killed in ambush.b.c. he sought refuge in the
Ch`u State and was appointed Prime Minister by King Cho. Despite all the
meritorious services he had rendered to the country, he was dismembered by his
political enemies upon the king's death in 381 b.c.b.c. As soon as he was entrusted by Duke Hsiao in
359 b.c. with all state affairs, he began to enforce
his legalism. He enriched the state and strengthened the army and caused Wey
many humiliating defeats till King Hui regretted with a sigh that he had not
taken Kung-shu Tso's advice.b.c. during the uprising caused by Prince Pai
Shêng.b.c.b.c.
此十數人者，皆世之仁賢忠良有道術之士也，不幸而遇悖亂闇惑之主而死。
These tens of men
然則雖賢聖不能逃死亡，避戮辱者何也？則愚者難說也；故君子（不少）〔難言〕也。 且至言忤於耳而倒於心，非賢聖莫能聽，願大王熟察之也。
Then, why could these worthies and sages escape
death penalties and evade disgrace? It was because of the difficulty
愛臣太親，必危其身；人臣太貴，必易主位；主妾無等，必危嫡子；兄弟不服，必危社稷。
Favourite vassals, if too intimate with the ruler,
would cause him personal danger. Ministers, if too powerful, would overturn the
august position of the sovereign. Wives and concubines, if without distinction
of rank, would cause legitimate sons dangers. Brothers, if not subservient to
the ruler, would endanger the Altar of the Spirits of Land and Grain.
臣聞千乘之君無備，必有百乘之臣在其側，以徙其民而傾其國；萬乘之君無備， 必有千乘之家在其側，以徙其威而傾其國。是以姦臣蕃息，主道衰亡。是故諸侯之博大，天子之害也； 群臣之太富，君主之敗也。將相之管主而隆（國）家，此君人者所外也。
Thy servant has heard: "The ruler of one thousand
chariots, if not on his guard, would find close by him vassals of one hundred
chariots aiming to shake his authority
萬物莫如身之至貴也，〔位之至尊也〕，〔主威之重〕，〔主勢之隆也〕。 此四美者，不求諸外，不請於人，議之而得之矣。故曰：人主不能用其富，則終於外也。此君人者之所識也。
Nothing is more valuable than the royal person,
more honourable than the throne, more powerful than the authority of the
sovereign, and more august than the position of the ruler. These four
excellences are not obtained from outside nor secured from anybody else, but
are deliberated in the ruler's own mind and acquired thereby. Hence the saying:
"The lord of men, if unable to exercise his
昔者紂之亡，周之卑，皆從諸侯之博大也。晉之分也，齊之奪也，皆以群臣之太富也。 夫燕、宋之所以弒其君者，皆（以）〔此〕類也。故上比之殷、周，中比之燕、宋，莫不從此術也。
Of old, the ruin of Chow and the fall of Chou were
both due to the territorial expansion of the feudal lords; the partition of
Chin
b.c. by the Chao, Han, and Wey Clans.b.c. by the T`ien Clan.
是故明君之蓄其臣也，盡之以法，質之以備。故不赦死，不宥刑。赦死宥刑，是謂威淫。社稷將危，國家偏威。
For this reason, the intelligent ruler, in keeping
officials in service, exhausts their abilities with laws and corrects their
errors with measures. Hence no release from the death penalty, no remission of
punishment. Both release from the death penalty and remission of punishment,
being called "authority-losing"