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.
