Abstract
In spite of unanimous agreement about the text’s philological and philosophical importance, research on the Han Feizi in English speaking countries has been much less common than on other Warring States texts like the Zhuangzi and the Xunzi (not to mention the Analects and the Mencius). A half century has passed since the full translation by W.K. Liao 廖文奎 was published in 1959 (Liao 1939–1959), and only a few monographs have appeared in English since then (Wang 1986; Lundahl 1992). In contrast, there is a vast amount of Chinese and Japanese literature on the Han Feizi.
I am grateful to Benjamin Gallant and Yoshida Eri for their helpful suggestions.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Notes
- 1.
Many of these have not been collected by any previous bibliography or review in either China or Japan.
- 2.
Inoguchi Atsushi 猪口篤志 points out that Doku Kanpishi seems to have been written around 1710, when Sorai was in his 40s (Inoguchi 1963: 45).
- 3.
These are: Matsuzawa En’s 松皐圓 (His original surname was Hosaka 蒲阪) Kanpishi sanmon韓非子纂問, Tsuda Hōkei’s津田鳳卿 Kanpishi kaiko 韓非子解詁, Yoda Toshimochi 依田利用 Kanpishi kōchū, 韓非子校注, and Fujisawa Nangaku’s 藤澤南岳 Kanpishi zensho 韓非子全書. During the Tokugawa period, only Tsuda’s commentary was printed by a commercial publisher, and it became more widely known among Tokugawa intellectuals than any other. Matsuzawa and Fujisawa’s commentaries were published in 1932 and 1884. Later, all of these commentaries (except for Yoda’s) were collected in Yan Lingfeng’s Jicheng. It was not until 1980 that a photocopy of a manuscript of Kōchū was published by Kyūko shoin 汲古書院.
- 4.
However, there are a few flaws in this work. As Inoguchi Atsushi and Chen Qitian pointed out, Ōta could not use the Qiandao edition, which was printed in 1165. Although the Qiandao edition has been lost, Wu Zi吳鼒 (1755–1821) published a version based on a hand-transcribed copy of the original, together with Gu Guangqi’s 顧廣圻 (1770–1839) collation notes. Zhang Jue presents a detailed description of the process by which Qing philologists collected, transcribed, collated, and (re)printed these texts in search of the closest possible approximation of the original Han Feizi (Zhang 2010: 1333–1462).
- 5.
However, as pointed out by Inoguchi, Ōta Hō continued to improve his commentary even after its initial publication in 1808, and the manuscript has been handed down by his descendants (Inoguchi 1963: 50).
- 6.
For example, it does not include Onozawa Seiichi’s complete translation, which was published in 1978 and includes a very detailed annotation. Although a number of other commentaries and translations have been published since then, contemporary Japanese scholars agree that Onozawa’s annotation of the text has remained the best for academic research. Moreover, it also includes a bibliography of 161 titles on mostly modern Han Feizi research up until 1978 (Onozawa 1978: 919–24).
- 7.
The author later asserted that Jiaoshi has gone through 100,000 print copies (Chen Qiyou 2000:1).
- 8.
Zhang Jue 2010: 1573–99 shows that more than 30 examples in Chen Qiyou’s collation notes are identical to those in Chen Qitian’s. As Zhang emphasizes, a certain number of transcription errors are also found in Chen Qitian’s work—an especially damning detail. Chen Qiyou could have avoided committing such mistakes if he had referred to the original texts.
- 9.
Among those publications, Wang Bangxiong’s doctoral dissertation was published as a monograph, so the total number of publications must be smaller than the number given by Zheng Liangshu.
- 10.
This monograph was originally written as his doctoral dissertation at Tokyo University. Han Dongyu was the supervisor of Song Hongbing’s Reevaluation of the Political Thought of the Han Feizi (Song 2010), which I have discussed above.
- 11.
Shimada listed Hosaka’s Sanmon, Ōta’s Yokuzei, and Yoda’s Kōchū as the three best Japanese commentaries until his time (Shimada 1892: 57).
- 12.
This volume was reprinted as many as eight times within 3 years of its first republication.
- 13.
Inoguchi mentions that Ōta Hō’s descendants have preserved his later work, titled Jūtei Kanpishi yokuzei (26 vols.) 重訂韓非子翼毳二十六卷. Kanō Naoki 狩野直喜 (1868–1947) also possessed a manuscript (Inoguchi 1963: 50).
- 14.
See no. 5, above.
- 15.
While a facsimile copy of the manuscript of Kōchū was published in 1980, Soshō’s manuscript has been preserved in the Shimada Bunko 島田文庫 of Tsukuba University Library 筑波大學.
- 16.
His oldest son, Shū 周, was only 13 years old when he started to help his father print the text.
- 17.
None of these three commentaries provides any information on background motivations other than intellectual interest in the Han Feizi, although it is possible that they referred to the Cheng-Zhu school in order to protect themselves politically.
- 18.
The full text of the Kanpishi kōgi, Kanpishi shinshaku, and Wayaku Kanpishi are available on the “Digital Library from the Meiji Era” homepage (http://kindai.ndl.go.jp/index.html), operated by the National Diet Library.
- 19.
Although it was called “modern,” the Japanese used by early twentieth century intellectuals was much more formal than the Japanese of today, and contained numerous words and phrases taken from classical Chinese.
- 20.
In contrast, Tsunashima Ryōsen’s 綱島梁川 (1873–1907) monograph on early Chinese ethics does not discuss the Han Feizi (Tsunashima 1907).
- 21.
Shimada Kin’ichi 島田鈞一 was the eldest son of Shimada Jūrei. Ten years before the publication of this article, Shimada had already published a textbook for a seminar on Chinese classics titled Kanpishi 韓非子, in a series called Sinological Commentaries of the Tetsugakukan Sinological Institute (Tetsugakukan Kangaku Senshūka Kangaku kōgi 哲学館漢学専修科漢学講義). It contains a four-page introduction to the thought of Han Fei and major commentaries on the text. He later became a professor of Chinese classics at Daiichi High School 第一高等學校 and Tokyo Bunrika University 東京文理科大學.
- 22.
Kubo uses these terms to explain that the Han Feizi’s approach to ruling focused on ensuring that the people remain obedient to the law. This notion was contrasted with the seiji shugi of Confucianism, in which political considerations (morally-oriented rule) should always be the primary concern for a ruler.
- 23.
The term kōri shugi was initially adopted as a translation of the Utilitarianism advocated by Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832) and James Stuart Mill (1773–1836). However, gong 功 (measurable attainment) and li 利 (profit/welfare) appear frequently in Warring States texts, and the term kōri often denoted a preference for efficient and practical methods of statecraft rather than the Utilitarianism proposed by Bentham and Mill.
- 24.
This article was included in his Studies on China 支那研究, which was published in 1916. Since he came back from China in 1909, this article was originally written sometime between 1909 and 1916.
- 25.
Saitō passed the examination for prosecutor (判檢事試驗) in 1918 (Saitō 1919: 77). He also published two articles about law and the public, and law and freedom of faith in Eastern Philosophy (Tōyō tetsugaku 東洋哲學) in 1918.
- 26.
This lecture was collected in Oyanagi’s collected work (Oyanagi 1934: 254–65).
- 27.
During the recent half century, Mozawa has published more articles on the Han Feizi than any other Japanese scholar.
- 28.
See also the chapter by Queen in this volume.
- 29.
Yokoyama Yutaka pointed out that 11 monographs on the Han Feizi aimed at general readers and college students were available for purchase in 1996 (Yokoyama 1997: 92).
Works Cited
Chen, Qitian 陳啟天. 1940, 1957 (revised 增訂版), 1969 (second revised 增訂二版). Han Feizi, with collations and explanations 韓非子校釋. Shanghai: Zhonghua.
Gao, Boyuan 高柏園. 1994. Studies on the philosophy of Han Fei 韓非哲學研究. Taipei: Wenjin. [Includes a review of the contemporary Neo-Confucian approach of Taiwanese studies of the Han Feizi]
Inoguchi , Atsushi 猪口篤志. 1963. “Research on the Han Feizi by Japanese Scholars” 邦人の韓非子研究について. Eastern Studies 東洋研究 2(3), pp. 41–62.
Kawai, Kōtarō 川合孝太郎. 1932. “A study of three Scholars commentaries on the Han Feizi” 韓非子三家注に就いて. Eastern Culture 東洋文化 95 (pp. 31–43) and 96 (pp. 34–50).
Kosaki, Tomonori 小崎智則. 2007. “Han Feizi’s theory of rulership: Focusing on the power structures of ancient Chinese society” 韓非子における君主論—中國古代社會の權力構造をめぐって. Ph.D. dissertation, Nagoya, Nagoya University. [Includes a review of Japanese research on the Han Feizi over the past half century]
Lundahl, Bertil. 1992. Han Fei Zi: The Man and the Work. Stockholm: Institute of Oriental Languages, Stockholm University.
Onozawa, Seiichi 小野澤精一 . 1980. “Legalist thought” 法家思想. Lectures on eastern thought 講座東洋思想, ed. Uno Seiichi 宇野精一 et al. Tokyo: Tokyo Daigaku. 4.97–4.124. [Includes a bibliography of Chinese and Japanese commentaries and research on the Han Feizi]
Song, Hongbin 宋洪兵. 2010. A reevaluation of the political thought of the Han Feizi 韓非子政治思想再研究. Beijing: Zhongguo Renmin Daxue chubanshe.
Zhang, Jue 張覺. 2010. The collations and extensive commentaries on the Han Feizi 韓非子校疏. Shanghai: Shanghai guji. [Includes a criticism of defects in Chen Qiyou’s commentary]
Zheng, Liangshu 鄭良樹. 1993. A bibliography of the Han Feizi 韓非子知見書目. Hong Kong: Commercial Press. [Includes an extensive review of Chinese and Taiwanese studies]
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Sato, M. (2013). Studies of the Han Feizi in China, Taiwan, and Japan. In: Goldin, P. (eds) Dao Companion to the Philosophy of Han Fei. Dao Companions to Chinese Philosophy. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4318-2_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4318-2_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-4317-5
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-4318-2
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)