University of Virginia Library

METHODOLOGICAL INTRODUCTION

By The Translator

I

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

As the Chinese language is far more concise and less
precise than English, writers of both languages, though able
to write lucidly in either tongue, are somehow or other at a
loss when asked, How should each be rendered into the
other? In this connection it is well remarked by
Dr. Duyvendak in the Preface to his own translation of
The Book of Lord Shang, that "a translation is a re-interpretation
of thought, and should never be a mechanical rendering
of words, least of all in the case of Chinese". Then, what
ought to be the right methods to attain that object, and how
was The Book of Lord Shang translated? To such natural
questions Duyvendak did not expound his answers, but
only added that "a translation into a Western language
acquires therefore more clearness and preciseness of expression
than the original possesses, as Chinese characters have a far

wider connotation than the English words by which they are
rendered, and verbs and nouns are not differentiated".

The first great achievement in the study of the problems,
principles, and methods of translation was in 1790 when
A. F. Tytler read before the Royal Society his papers on
Translation, which were soon afterwards published. Thus
in 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 etymological
differences, it goes without saying that every translator
of Chinese into English has to fight his way through all
hardships. Thus, either because Chinese is more concise, or
because it is less precise than English, I have found, above
everything else, the necessity of using the liberty of making
additions and omissions within certain limits. For instance,

in many cases I have added to the ideas of the original such
words as would help the reader grasp their meanings in so
far as the superadded thought has the most necessary
connection with the original and actually increases its
intelligibility, not to speak of my additions of articles and
specifications of tense, mood, case, number, and gender.
Naturally, here and there throughout the translation I
have interposed not only single words but also phrases, and
sometimes even clauses.

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

As regards idioms, there are a number in the original to
which I have found no corresponding idiom in English.
In case a literal translation appears to be confusing, the sense
is expressed in plain and easy English. Likewise, whenever
the English way of expression is more concise in wording

and elegant in style and less monotonous and less complicated
in structure than the Chinese way, then the native colour is
sacrificed with no regret. But wherever it is tolerable, there
is made a literal rendering. Such Chinese idioms as "Allunder-Heaven",[1]
"the Son of Heaven,"[2] "the lord of
men,"[3] "the hundred surnames,"[4] and "the Altar of the
Spirits of Land and Grain",[5] being both expressive of the
native colour and impressive to English readers, I consider
worth translating literally. On the contrary, such Chinese
terms as Tao,[6] Teh,[7] li,[8] mou,[9] etc., which have no exact
equivalent in English but are rather widely understood by
English readers, seem better transliterated in most cases
than translated.

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

II

So much above for the art of translating—translating
words, phrases, and clauses. To me, however, translation
can be science, as well as art. And it ought to be science
when we come to the translation of sentences. This leads
us to the logical methodology of translation. With such a
new methodological problem in the foreground, I have,
therefore, since the beginning of this work, thought of
disclosing possibilities, if any, of applying logical principles
to the translation of one language into another, as for

example here, of Chinese into English, both being mutually
so different. Thought the time is not as yet ripe for me to
claim any success in the problem-solving effort, yet a few
words about the application of the most general principles
of logic to the science of translation may, it is hoped, be
suggestive to my future comrades in the same field of
exploration.

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

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

from the original, will then in substance be faithful to the
idea of the author.

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

As regards the three accepted types of propositions, they
are as a rule interchangeable, since the categorical proposition
is the origin of the hypothetical and alternative propositions.
In the case of a categorical proposition, if the writing in the
English rendering of the original sentence appears to be
awkward or not intelligible to English readers, it ought to
be advisable to apply the doctrines of opposition and
eduction and see if the writing of the immediate inference
from the original proposition is elegant in style and proficient
in composition. For instance, there are in Chinese found
such expressions as, "Man never fails to have father and
mother," which implies "Everybody has parents". Now,
compared with the former, which is the transfusion of the
meaning of the original, the latter, which is the transfusion
of an immediate inference of the original, certainly sounds
elegant and proficient, without losing any portion of the
original thought. Likewise, it is possible to express the
substance of the original, which is a categorical proposition

into a hypothetical or an alternative proposition. In short,
wherever the transfusion of the meaning or direct sense fails,
there the transfusion of the implication or indirect sense is
preferable, although it is not always easy to determine at
what point the validity of transfusing the meaning of a
statement ends and the necessity of transfusing the implication
begins. Herein lies an everlasting difficulty in the way of
translation as well as the need of practice to master the skill
of it.

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

The last, but by no means the least, important point

throughout my English rendering is the distinction of "if"
from "when" and "where". "If" is used in universal
propositions to introduce "conditions" of certain events
while "when" is used in particular propositions to introduce
"temporal instances" and "where" to introduce "spatial
instances" of certain events. Similarly, "if" introduces
in general "conditions" of certain events, while "whenever"
and "wherever" specify their temporal and spatial aspects
respectively.

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

III

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

yet for all detailed discussions I must again refer the reader
to the companion volume.

In the transliteration of the Chinese names I have largely
followed Giles's system with slight variations that I have
found necessary in the interests of distinction and
convenience. Thus, I have purposely differentiated
"Chow"[10] from "Chou",[11] "Wey"[12] from "Wei",[13]
and "Shen"[14] from "Shên".[15] In case of possible confusions
and needful specifications, Chinese characters are found in
the notes; otherwise, in the glossary. On the other hand,
to minimize the monotony of the sounds of proper names and
to refresh the reader's interest, I have used English words
with equivalent meanings for all available names, such as
the Yellow Emperor for Huang-ti, the Yellow River for
Huang-ho, the Armour Gorge Pass for Han-ku-kuan, etc.

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

IV

The present translation is throughout my own, in both
method and substance, although I have used for reference
certain partial translations and sketchy quotations in English

and other Western languages. My special differences from
them are found in the notes and from time to time discussed
in the companion volume.

The first ambitious attempt at translating Han Fei TzŬ
into a Western language appeared in Russian (1912) by
Ivanov. The work was a partial translation. To my regret,
I am unable to read it and appreciate the translator's mastery
of the Chinese original. Nevertheless, Paul Pelliot's review
of the work in the Journal Asiatique (Septembre-Octobre,
1913) has afforded me a vivid glimpse of the whole
accomplishment. According to Pelliot, "Confusion de
noms, prononciations inacceptables, références insuffisantes,
dates donnée d'après les commentateurs chinois sans
équivalents européens, ce sont là autant de défauts auxquels
un peu d'effort eût aisément remédié" (pp. 422-3). "Je
ne puis me défendre," continues Pelliot further, "quoique
à regret, de dire que la sinologie attend de M. Ivanov autre
chose. Son livre serait très honorable pour un amateur qui,
loin de toute bibliothèque, voudrait donner à des compatriotes
un aperçu d'un système chinois. Mais M. Ivanov est un
technicien. . . ." (p. 423). In short, the translation presents
"un première ébauche" of Han Fei TzŬ's thought but can
hardly acquaint the reader with its substance.

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

Han Fei TzŬ in his 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 TzŬ just as that of Liang's whole
book abounds with omissions, inaccuracies, and mis-statements.
Throughout the book, crucial points purposely
brought to the fore by the author, which would be interesting
to Western scholars, were omitted, whether by mistake or by

intention, while annotations and elucidations which would
make every reader appreciate the text with a new spirit were
rarely or never made. Nevertheless, if it is not just to blame
an amateur for his unpresentable work, it is certainly not
unjust to suggest that he should ask accomplished scholars
to revise it.

Last year appeared Derk Bodde's English rendering of
Fung Yu-lan'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 accomplishment.
However, if an extensive surveyor of philosophical
ideas is liable to superficiality and equivocation, how much
more would his translator be? As far as Bodde's translation
of passages from Han Fei TzŬ is concerned, it is very likely
that after an intensive study of Han Fei TzŬ's thought he
will have to reconsider his rendering of the important
legalist terms shih[16] as "power" or "authority" and shu[17]
as "method" or "statecraft". Nevertheless, if the 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.