The cruel laws of the cruel state of Ch’in are a byword in traditional Chinese historiography；the same accusation is sometimes even found in modern studies．But although the iniquities of Ch’in have become proverbial, the factual grounds of this allegation are never given，except in the most general terms．It’s even more striking to observe that the Ch’in authors of the School of Law, Shang Yang and Han Fei，hardly ever adduce concrete examples of the legislatlon of this state．However，this silence ceases to be surprising when it is realized that these writers were not so much interested in the contents of the laws as in their use as a political tool．To them，the predominantly penal laws and a system of rewards，especially for deeds of military valour，were the two "handles"，which the ruler was to manipulate in order to compel the population to do their utmost in two domains：agriculture and warfare．The silence of the Ch’in auther on the actual contents of the laws shows that they took their existence for granted. This shows，by the way，that the creation of codified law in Ch’in is to be placed considerably earlier than the middle of the 4th century---the time of Shang Yang---whereas in the eastern part of China codification will have dated  at an earlier date than is usually assumed, perhaps as early as the 8th century B.C. As a result of this silence，we used to know far 1ess about the actual laws of Ch’in than about the legislation of the following Han dynasty (202 B.C. - 220 A.D.)，fragmentary as this knowledge is．At most, one could have assumed that，because the Han had adopted the laws of Ch’in from the outset, some known Han rules might have found their origin in Ch’in．

    The recent discovery of a number of Ch’in laws and regulations has changed the situation significantly，but it should be stressed that we are still far from possessmg the whole of the Ch’in code．It is quite clear that these new texts are only a selection from a much larger body of laws；they are a selection made for the use of a subordinate official in the local administration、who was eventually buried with the texts he had constantly used during his lifetime．It is practically certain that these texts belonged to a person called His (喜). Another document found in the tomb provides precious  information  on his life -- born in 262 B.C., he became a government scribe in 244 B.C., to be promoted Prefectural Clerk in 241 B．c．；in 235 B．C．he was charged with trying criminal suits. This explains why the texts found in his tomb include both administrative rules and material on penal law．

    This legal material, written off bamboo-strips，forms part of a collection of 1155 strips，found in December 1975 in the coffin of tomb no．11．This is one of a group graves , discovered during the digging of a drainage canal in Shui-hu-ti area (睡虎地) of the Hsiao-kan District (孝感区)，Yun-meng Prefecture，central Hu-pei Province．The texts were written on bamboo strips, because bamboo and wooden strips of diffrent sizes were the normal writing material before the invention of rag paper in the 2nd century of our era：even then they continued to be used for another three centuries．Such strips usually contained one column of characters，written with a brush of rabbit hair and black ink made of pine soot：the strips were held together by several sets -- usually three -- of intertwined strings．

    The legal and administrative material occupies 6l2 strips and parts of another l3 strips. The remaining strips contain prose writings and mantic texts．

    The tomb in which this treasure was found can be dated c．2l7 B．C．, and is is beyond any doubt that the texts are Ch’in texts and that they belong to the 3rd century B．C．Incontrovertible proof is provided by the repeated mention of the Ch’in capital Hsien-yang，because already in the very first year of the Han ruler who was later canonized as Kao-tsu (i．e．，206 B．C．) Hsien-yang was renamed Hsin-ch’eng (新城), and after its destruction by Hsiang Yu later in the same year the place completely lost its importance．Although it is difficult, if not impossible，to determine when the contents of the strips were copied from unknown prototypes，there are a few indications concerning the time when some of the texts were established．Some must have been written after named events，such as the battle of Hsing-ch’iu which was fought in 266 B．C．, or the death of the Ch’in dukes Hsien and Hsiao, indicating a date after 338 B．C．The term "sacrifices by the Royal House" shows that the article was written after 325 B．C．，when the Ch’in ruler adopted the title of king．Custom demanded that in writing the name of the ruler as well as some of its homophones, certain characters were avoided and replaced by synonyms．When we therefore observe that in some passages the Village Chief, normally called li cheng (里正)，is called Li tien (里典)， we know that these passages were copied，if not created, during the reign of the king of Ch’in who acceded as such in 246 B．C．and became the First Emperor in 221．As his personal name was Cheng (政)，the documents in question may be dated after 246 B．C． One article mentions the existence of twelve commanderies and several authors conclude from this figure that the article must date from the middle of the 3rd century B.C.  Without exception the word for“crime”is written with“自”as the upper half and“辛”as the lower half of the character，and one author therefore believes that this indicates that the texts were written before 22l B．C．，when King Cheng of Ch’was created the title Huang-ti（皇帝, “emperor” ）．This argument rests on the statement in the Shuo-wen dictionary of A．D．100 that at that time the character with“自”as the upper half and“辛”as the lower half was replaced by 罪，because the former character resembled皇.  However，this has been refuted by another scholar，who shows that an inscription of the First Emperor of 2l5 B．C．contains罪，whereas a later inscription，of 2l0 B．C．，still has“自”as the upper half and“辛”as the lower half! In other words，there is no doubt that the texts belong to the 3rd century B．C．，at the latest．

  The present arrangement of the material is chiefly the work of the editors, because the strings which had held the strips together had completely decayed．In this，they were guided by several external factors．Firstly by the place where the strips had been found inside the coffin：they were situated either beside the head or the chest of the corpse，or across the thighs，or at the feet． Secondly，by the size of the strips，for some had a length of one Ch’in-Han foot of c．23cm．，whereas others measured c．27.5 cm．or 1 ft．2 in．Thirdly，in some groups the strips were fully covered with writing，but in others only partly，leaving blank spaces．The strips which now have been assembled to form groups A，B and E bear titles of statutes，whereas others do not．The editors had to overcome these handicaps in order to arrive at a meaningful arrangement of the strips, and they deserve the highest praise for having successfully solved this forbidding puzzle，which was rendered all the more difficult because quite a number of strips had been broken into several fragments．Unfortunately．the individual fragments are not indicated in the transcription in S III-VII; the photographs in S I and I I are too fuzzy to allow distinguishing any clear breaks，whereas those in CM are too black．Still, the present arrangement seems to be quite acceptable，because the texts make sense：only a perfect facsimile edition will show，whether a different order would provide a better meaning for some passages.

The editors are to be complimented for their acumen in deciphering the crabbed handwriting；they seem to have worked partly on enlarged photographs，such as those published in the popular illustrated journal Renmin huabao．This handwriting sorely puzzles the outsider, who is therefore mostly constrained to accept the editors’transcription．I have tried to check the printed text against the photographs，but to my regret I have to acknowledge defeat．