home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
Amiga CD32
/
Amiga CD32 1994 - Brilliant PD Games.iso
/
literature
/
50.artofwar.1
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1994-05-11
|
71KB
|
1,820 lines
SUN TZU ON THE ART OF WAR
THE OLDEST MILITARY TREATISE IN THE WORLD
Translated from the Chinese with Introduction and
Critical Notes by Lionel Giles, M.A.
Assistant in the Department of Oriental Printed
Books and MSS. in the British Museum
First Published in 1910
---------------------------------------
To my brother
Captain Valentine Giles, R.G.
in the hope that
a work 2400 years old
may yet contain lessons worth consideration
by the soldier of today
this translation
is affectionately dedicated.
---------------------------------------
INTRODUCTION
* Sun Wu and his Book *
Ssu-ma Ch`ien gives the following biography
of Sun Tzu: [1] --
Sun Tzu Wu was a native of the Ch`i State.
His ART OF WAR brought him to the notice of Ho Lu,
[2] King of Wu. Ho Lu said to him: "I have
carefully perused your 13 chapters. May I submit
your theory of managing soldiers to a slight
test?"
Sun Tzu replied: "You may."
Ho Lu asked: "May the test be applied to
women?"
The answer was again in the affirmative, so
arrangements were made to bring 180 ladies out of
the Palace. Sun Tzu divided them into two
companies, and placed one of the King's favorite
concubines at the head of each. He then bade them
all take spears in their hands, and addressed them
thus: "I presume you know the difference between
front and back, right hand and left hand?"
The girls replied: Yes.
Sun Tzu went on: "When I say "Eyes front,"
you must look straight ahead. When I say "Left
turn," you must face towards your left hand. When
I say "Right turn," you must face towards your
right hand. When I say "About turn," you must
face right round towards your back."
Again the girls assented. The words of
command having been thus explained, he set up the
halberds and battle-axes in order to begin the
drill. Then, to the sound of drums, he gave the
order "Right turn." But the girls only burst out
laughing. Sun Tzu said: "If words of command are
not clear and distinct, if orders are not
thoroughly understood, then the general is to
blame."
So he started drilling them again, and this
time gave the order "Left turn," whereupon the
girls once more burst into fits of laughter. Sun
Tzu: "If words of command are not clear and
distinct, if orders are not thoroughly understood,
the general is to blame. But if his orders ARE
clear, and the soldiers nevertheless disobey, then
it is the fault of their officers."
So saying, he ordered the leaders of the two
companies to be beheaded. Now the king of Wu was
watching the scene from the top of a raised
pavilion; and when he saw that his favorite
concubines were about to be executed, he was
greatly alarmed and hurriedly sent down the
following message: "We are now quite satisfied as
to our general's ability to handle troops. If We
are bereft of these two concubines, our meat and
drink will lose their savor. It is our wish that
they shall not be beheaded."
Sun Tzu replied: "Having once received His
Majesty's commission to be the general of his
forces, there are certain commands of His Majesty
which, acting in that capacity, I am unable to
accept."
Accordingly, he had the two leaders beheaded,
and straightway installed the pair next in order
as leaders in their place. When this had been
done, the drum was sounded for the drill once
more; and the girls went through all the
evolutions, turning to the right or to the left,
marching ahead or wheeling back, kneeling or
standing, with perfect accuracy and precision, not
venturing to utter a sound. Then Sun Tzu sent a
messenger to the King saying: "Your soldiers,
Sire, are now properly drilled and disciplined,
and ready for your majesty's inspection. They can
be put to any use that their sovereign may desire;
bid them go through fire and water, and they will
not disobey."
But the King replied: "Let our general cease
drilling and return to camp. As for us, We have
no wish to come down and inspect the troops."
Thereupon Sun Tzu said: "The King is only
fond of words, and cannot translate them into
deeds."
After that, Ho Lu saw that Sun Tzu was one
who knew how to handle an army, and finally
appointed him general. In the west, he defeated
the Ch`u State and forced his way into Ying, the
capital; to the north he put fear into the States
of Ch`i and Chin, and spread his fame abroad
amongst the feudal princes. And Sun Tzu shared in
the might of the King.
About Sun Tzu himself this is all that Ssu-ma
Ch`ien has to tell us in this chapter. But he
proceeds to give a biography of his descendant,
Sun Pin, born about a hundred years after his
famous ancestor's death, and also the outstanding
military genius of his time. The historian speaks
of him too as Sun Tzu, and in his preface we read:
"Sun Tzu had his feet cut off and yet continued to
discuss the art of war." [3] It seems likely,
then, that "Pin" was a nickname bestowed on him
after his mutilation, unless the story was
invented in order to account for the name. The
crowning incident of his career, the crushing
defeat of his treacherous rival P`ang Chuan, will
be found briefly related in Chapter V. ss. 19,
note.
To return to the elder Sun Tzu. He is
mentioned in two other passages of the SHIH CHI:
In the third year of his reign [512 B.C.] Ho
Lu, king of Wu, took the field with Tzu-hsu [i.e.
Wu Yuan] and Po P`ei, and attacked Ch`u. He
captured the town of Shu and slew the two prince's
sons who had formerly been generals of Wu. He was
then meditating a descent on Ying [the capital];
but the general Sun Wu said: "The army is
exhausted. It is not yet possible. We must
wait".... [After further successful fighting,]
"in the ninth year [506 B.C.], King Ho Lu
addressed Wu Tzu-hsu and Sun Wu, saying:
"Formerly, you declared that it was not yet
possible for us to enter Ying. Is the time ripe
now?" The two men replied: "Ch`u's general
Tzu-ch`ang, [4] is grasping and covetous, and the
princes of T`ang and Ts`ai both have a grudge
against him. If Your Majesty has resolved to make
a grand attack, you must win over T`ang and Ts`ai,
and then you may succeed." Ho Lu followed this
advice, [beat Ch`u in five pitched battles and
marched into Ying.] [5]
This is the latest date at which anything is
recorded of Sun Wu. He does not appear to have
survived his patron, who died from the effects of
a wound in 496.
In another chapter there occurs this passage:
[6]
From this time onward, a number of famous
soldiers arose, one after the other: Kao-fan, [7]
who was employed by the Chin State; Wang-tzu, [8]
in the service of Ch`i; and Sun Wu, in the service
of Wu. These men developed and threw light upon
the principles of war.
It is obvious enough that Ssu-ma Ch`ien at
least had no doubt about the reality of Sun Wu as
an historical personage; and with one exception,
to be noticed presently, he is by far the most
important authority on the period in question. It
will not be necessary, therefore, to say much of
such a work as the WU YUEH CH`UN CH`IU, which is
supposed to have been written by Chao Yeh of the
1st century A.D. The attribution is somewhat
doubtful; but even if it were otherwise, his
account would be of little value, based as it is
on the SHIH CHI and expanded with romantic
details. The story of Sun Tzu will be found, for
what it is worth, in chapter 2. The only new
points in it worth noting are: (1) Sun Tzu was
first recommended to Ho Lu by Wu Tzu-hsu. (2) He
is called a native of Wu. (3) He had previously
lived a retired life, and his contemporaries were
unaware of his ability.
The following passage occurs in the Huai-nan
Tzu: "When sovereign and ministers show
perversity of mind, it is impossible even for a
Sun Tzu to encounter the foe." Assuming that this
work is genuine (and hitherto no doubt has been
cast upon it), we have here the earliest direct
reference for Sun Tzu, for Huai-nan Tzu died in
122 B.C., many years before the SHIH CHI was given
to the world.
Liu Hsiang (80-9 B.C.) says: "The reason why
Sun Tzu at the head of 30,000 men beat Ch`u with
200,000 is that the latter were undisciplined."
Teng Ming-shih informs us that the surname
"Sun" was bestowed on Sun Wu's grandfather by Duke
Ching of Ch`i [547-490 B.C.]. Sun Wu's father Sun
P`ing, rose to be a Minister of State in Ch`i, and
Sun Wu himself, whose style was Ch`ang-ch`ing,
fled to Wu on account of the rebellion which was
being fomented by the kindred of T`ien Pao. He
had three sons, of whom the second, named Ming,
was the father of Sun Pin. According to this
account then, Pin was the grandson of Wu, which,
considering that Sun Pin's victory over Wei was
gained in 341 B.C., may be dismissed as
chronological impossible. Whence these data were
obtained by Teng Ming-shih I do not know, but of
course no reliance whatever can be placed in them.
An interesting document which has survived
from the close of the Han period is the short
preface written by the Great Ts`ao Ts`ao, or Wei
Wu Ti, for his edition of Sun Tzu. I shall give
it in full: --
I have heard that the ancients used bows and
arrows to their advantage. [10] The SHU CHU
mentions "the army" among the "eight objects of
government." The I CHING says: "'army' indicates
firmness and justice; the experienced leader will
have good fortune." The SHIH CHING says: "The
King rose majestic in his wrath, and he marshaled
his troops." The Yellow Emperor, T`ang the
Completer and Wu Wang all used spears and
battle-axes in order to succor their generation.
The SSU-MA FA says: "If one man slay another of
set purpose, he himself may rightfully be slain."
He who relies solely on warlike measures shall be
exterminated; he who relies solely on peaceful
measures shall perish. Instances of this are Fu
Ch`ai [11] on the one hand and Yen Wang on the
other. [12] In military matters, the Sage's rule
is normally to keep the peace, and to move his
forces only when occasion requires. He will not
use armed force unless driven to it by necessity.
Many books have I read on the subject of war
and fighting; but the work composed by Sun Wu is
the profoundest of them all. [Sun Tzu was a
native of the Ch`i state, his personal name was
Wu. He wrote the ART OF WAR in 13 chapters for Ho
Lu, King of Wu. Its principles were tested on
women, and he was subsequently made a general. He
led an army westwards, crushed the Ch`u state and
entered Ying the capital. In the north, he kept
Ch`i and Chin in awe. A hundred years and more
after his time, Sun Pin lived. He was a
descendant of Wu.] [13] In his treatment of
deliberation and planning, the importance of
rapidity in taking the field, [14] clearness of
conception, and depth of design, Sun Tzu stands
beyond the reach of carping criticism. My
contemporaries, however, have failed to grasp the
full meaning of his instructions, and while
putting into practice the smaller details in which
his work abounds, they have overlooked its
essential purport. That is the motive which has
led me to outline a rough explanation of the
whole.
One thing to be noticed in the above is the
explicit statement that the 13 chapters were
specially composed for King Ho Lu. This is
supported by the internal evidence of I. ss. 15,
in which it seems clear that some ruler is
addressed.
In the bibliographic section of the HAN SHU,
there is an entry which has given rise to much
discussion: "The works of Sun Tzu of Wu in 82
P`IEN (or chapters), with diagrams in 9 CHUAN." It
is evident that this cannot be merely the 13
chapters known to Ssu-ma Ch`ien, or those we
possess today. Chang Shou-chieh refers to an
edition of Sun Tzu's ART OF WAR of which the "13
chapters" formed the first CHUAN, adding that
there were two other CHUAN besides. This has
brought forth a theory, that the bulk of these 82
chapters consisted of other writings of Sun Tzu --
we should call them apocryphal -- similar to the
WEN TA, of which a specimen dealing with the Nine
Situations [15] is preserved in the T`UNG TIEN,
and another in Ho Shin's commentary. It is
suggested that before his interview with Ho Lu,
Sun Tzu had only written the 13 chapters, but
afterwards composed a sort of exegesis in the form
of question and answer between himself and the
King. Pi I-hsun, the author of the SUN TZU HSU
LU, backs this up with a quotation from the WU
YUEH CH`UN CH`IU: "The King of Wu summoned Sun
Tzu, and asked him questions about the art of war.
Each time he set forth a chapter of his work, the
King could not find words enough to praise him."
As he points out, if the whole work was expounded
on the same scale as in the above- mentioned
fragments, the total number of chapters could not
fail to be considerable. Then the numerous other
treatises attributed to Sun Tzu might be included.
The fact that the HAN CHIH mentions no work of Sun
Tzu except the 82 P`IEN, whereas the Sui and T`ang
bibliographies give the titles of others in
addition to the "13 chapters," is good proof, Pi
I-hsun thinks, that all of these were contained in
the 82 P`IEN. Without pinning our faith to the
accuracy of details supplied by the WU YUEH CH`UN
CH`IU, or admitting the genuineness of any of the
treatises cited by Pi I-hsun, we may see in this
theory a probable solution of the mystery.
Between Ssu-ma Ch`ien and Pan Ku there was plenty
of time for a luxuriant crop of forgeries to have
grown up under the magic name of Sun Tzu, and the
82 P`IEN may very well represent a collected
edition of these lumped together with the original
work. It is also possible, though less likely,
that some of them existed in the time of the
earlier historian and were purposely ignored by
him. [16]
Tu Mu's conjecture seems to be based on a
passage which states: "Wei Wu Ti strung together
Sun Wu's Art of War," which in turn may have
resulted from a misunderstanding of the final
words of Ts`ao King's preface. This, as Sun
Hsing-yen points out, is only a modest way of
saying that he made an explanatory paraphrase, or
in other words, wrote a commentary on it. On the
whole, this theory has met with very little
acceptance. Thus, the SSU K`U CH`UAN SHU says:
"The mention of the 13 chapters in the SHIH CHI
shows that they were in existence before the HAN
CHIH, and that latter accretions are not to be
considered part of the original work. Tu Mu's
assertion can certainly not be taken as proof."
There is every reason to suppose, then, that
the 13 chapters existed in the time of Ssu-ma
Ch`ien practically as we have them now. That the
work was then well known he tells us in so many
words. "Sun Tzu's 13 Chapters and Wu Ch`i's Art
of War are the two books that people commonly
refer to on the subject of military matters. Both
of them are widely distributed, so I will not
discuss them here." But as we go further back,
serious difficulties begin to arise. The salient
fact which has to be faced is that the TSO CHUAN,
the greatest contemporary record, makes no mention
whatsoever of Sun Wu, either as a general or as a
writer. It is natural, in view of this awkward
circumstance, that many scholars should not only
cast doubt on the story of Sun Wu as given in the
SHIH CHI, but even show themselves frankly
skeptical as to the existence of the man at all.
The most powerful presentment of this side of the
case is to be found in the following disposition
by Yeh Shui-hsin: [17] --
It is stated in Ssu-ma Ch`ien's history that
Sun Wu was a native of the Ch`i State, and
employed by Wu; and that in the reign of Ho Lu he
crushed Ch`u, entered Ying, and was a great
general. But in Tso's Commentary no Sun Wu
appears at all. It is true that Tso's Commentary
need not contain absolutely everything that other
histories contain. But Tso has not omitted to
mention vulgar plebeians and hireling ruffians
such as Ying K`ao-shu, [18] Ts`ao Kuei, [19], Chu
Chih-wu and Chuan She-chu [20]. In the case of
Sun Wu, whose fame and achievements were so
brilliant, the omission is much more glaring.
Again, details are given, in their due order,
about his contemporaries Wu Yuan and the Minister
P`ei. [21] Is it credible that Sun Wu alone
should have been passed over?
In point of literary style, Sun Tzu's work
belongs to the same school as KUAN TZU, [22] LIU
T`AO, [23] and the YUEH YU [24] and may have been
the production of some private scholar living
towards the end of the "Spring and Autumn" or the
beginning of the "Warring States" period. [25]
The story that his precepts were actually applied
by the Wu State, is merely the outcome of big talk
on the part of his followers.
From the flourishing period of the Chou
dynasty [26] down to the time of the "Spring and
Autumn," all military commanders were statesmen as
well, and the class of professional generals, for
conducting external campaigns, did not then exist.
It was not until the period of the "Six States"
[27] that this custom changed. Now although Wu
was an uncivilized State, it is conceivable that
Tso should have left unrecorded the fact that Sun
Wu was a great general and yet held no civil
office? What we are told, therefore, about
Jang-chu [28] and Sun Wu, is not authentic matter,
but the reckless fabrication of theorizing
pundits. The story of Ho Lu's experiment on the
women, in particular, is utterly preposterous and
incredible.
Yeh Shui-hsin represents Ssu-ma Ch`ien as
having said that Sun Wu crushed Ch`u and entered
Ying. This is not quite correct. No doubt the
impression left on the reader's mind is that he at
least shared in these exploits. The fact may or
may not be significant; but it is nowhere
explicitly stated in the SHIH CHI either that Sun
Tzu was general on the occasion of the taking of
Ying, or that he even went there at all.
Moreover, as we know that Wu Yuan and Po P`ei both
took part in the expedition, and also that its
success was largely due to the dash and enterprise
of Fu Kai, Ho Lu's younger brother, it is not easy
to see how yet another general could have played a
very prominent part in the same campaign.
Ch`en Chen-sun of the Sung dynasty has the
note: --
Military writers look upon Sun Wu as the
father of their art. But the fact that he does
not appear in the TSO CHUAN, although he is said
to have served under Ho Lu King of Wu, makes it
uncertain what period he really belonged to.
He also says: --
The works of Sun Wu and Wu Ch`i may be of
genuine antiquity.
It is noticeable that both Yeh Shui-hsin and
Ch`en Chen-sun, while rejecting the personality of
Sun Wu as he figures in Ssu-ma Ch`ien's history,
are inclined to accept the date traditionally
assigned to the work which passes under his name.
The author of the HSU LU fails to appreciate this
distinction, and consequently his bitter attack on
Ch`en Chen-sun really misses its mark. He makes
one of two points, however, which certainly tell
in favor of the high antiquity of our "13
chapters." "Sun Tzu," he says, "must have lived in
the age of Ching Wang [519-476], because he is
frequently plagiarized in subsequent works of the
Chou, Ch`in and Han dynasties." The two most
shameless offenders in this respect are Wu Ch`i
and Huai-nan Tzu, both of them important
historical personages in their day. The former
lived only a century after the alleged date of Sun
Tzu, and his death is known to have taken place in
381 B.C. It was to him, according to Liu Hsiang,
that Tseng Shen delivered the TSO CHUAN, which had
been entrusted to him by its author. [29] Now the
fact that quotations from the ART OF WAR,
acknowledged or otherwise, are to be found in so
many authors of different epochs, establishes a
very strong anterior to them all, -- in other
words, that Sun Tzu's treatise was already in
existence towards the end of the 5th century B.C.
Further proof of Sun Tzu's antiquity is furnished
by the archaic or wholly obsolete meanings
attaching to a number of the words he uses. A
list of these, which might perhaps be extended, is
given in the HSU LU; and though some of the
interpretations are doubtful, the main argument is
hardly affected thereby. Again, it must not be
forgotten that Yeh Shui- hsin, a scholar and
critic of the first rank, deliberately pronounces
the style of the 13 chapters to belong to the
early part of the fifth century. Seeing that he
is actually engaged in an attempt to disprove the
existence of Sun Wu himself, we may be sure that
he would not have hesitated to assign the work to
a later date had he not honestly believed the
contrary. And it is precisely on such a point
that the judgment of an educated Chinaman will
carry most weight. Other internal evidence is not
far to seek. Thus in XIII. ss. 1, there is an
unmistakable allusion to the ancient system of
land-tenure which had already passed away by the
time of Mencius, who was anxious to see it revived
in a modified form. [30] The only warfare Sun Tzu
knows is that carried on between the various
feudal princes, in which armored chariots play a
large part. Their use seems to have entirely died
out before the end of the Chou dynasty. He speaks
as a man of Wu, a state which ceased to exist as
early as 473 B.C. On this I shall touch
presently.
But once refer the work to the 5th century or
earlier, and the chances of its being other than a
bona fide production are sensibly diminished. The
great age of forgeries did not come until long
after. That it should have been forged in the
period immediately following 473 is particularly
unlikely, for no one, as a rule, hastens to
identify himself with a lost cause. As for Yeh
Shui-hsin's theory, that the author was a literary
recluse, that seems to me quite untenable. If one
thing is more apparent than another after reading
the maxims of Sun Tzu, it is that their essence
has been distilled from a large store of personal
observation and experience. They reflect the mind
not only of a born strategist, gifted with a rare
faculty of generalization, but also of a practical
soldier closely acquainted with the military
conditions of his time. To say nothing of the
fact that these sayings have been accepted and
endorsed by all the greatest captains of Chinese
history, they offer a combination of freshness and
sincerity, acuteness and common sense, which quite
excludes the idea that they were artificially
concocted in the study. If we admit, then, that
the 13 chapters were the genuine production of a
military man living towards the end of the "CH`UN
CH`IU" period, are we not bound, in spite of the
silence of the TSO CHUAN, to accept Ssu-ma
Ch`ien's account in its entirety? In view of his
high repute as a sober historian, must we not
hesitate to assume that the records he drew upon
for Sun Wu's biography were false and
untrustworthy? The answer, I fear, must be in the
negative. There is still one grave, if not fatal,
objection to the chronology involved in the story
as told in the SHIH CHI, which, so far as I am
aware, nobody has yet pointed out. There are two
passages in Sun Tzu in which he alludes to
contemporary affairs. The first in in VI. ss.
21: --
Though according to my estimate the soldiers
of Yueh exceed our own in number, that shall
advantage them nothing in the matter of victory.
I say then that victory can be achieved.
The other is in XI. ss. 30: --
Asked if an army can be made to imitate the
SHUAI-JAN, I should answer, Yes. For the men of
Wu and the men of Yueh are enemies; yet if they
are crossing a river in the same boat and are
caught by a storm, they will come to each other's
assistance just as the left hand helps the right.
These two paragraphs are extremely valuable
as evidence of the date of composition. They
assign the work to the period of the struggle
between Wu and Yueh. So much has been observed by
Pi I-hsun. But what has hitherto escaped notice
is that they also seriously impair the credibility
of Ssu-ma Ch`ien's narrative. As we have seen
above, the first positive date given in connection
with Sun Wu is 512 B.C. He is then spoken of as a
general, acting as confidential adviser to Ho Lu,
so that his alleged introduction to that monarch
had already taken place, and of course the 13
chapters must have been written earlier still.
But at that time, and for several years after,
down to the capture of Ying in 506, Ch`u and not
Yueh, was the great hereditary enemy of Wu. The
two states, Ch`u and Wu, had been constantly at
war for over half a century, [31] whereas the
first war between Wu and Yueh was waged only in
510, [32] and even then was no more than a short
interlude sandwiched in the midst of the fierce
struggle with Ch`u. Now Ch`u is not mentioned in
the 13 chapters at all. The natural inference is
that they were written at a time when Yueh had
become the prime antagonist of Wu, that is, after
Ch`u had suffered the great humiliation of 506.
At this point, a table of dates may be found
useful.
B.C.
514
Accession of Ho Lu.
512
Ho Lu attacks Ch`u, but is dissuaded from
entering Ying, the capital. SHI CHI
mentions Sun Wu as general.
511
Another attack on Ch`u.
510
Wu makes a successful attack on Yueh.
This is the first war between the two
states.
509 or 508
Ch`u invades Wu, but is signally defeated
at Yu-chang.
506
Ho Lu attacks Ch`u with the aid of T`ang
and Ts`ai.
Decisive battle of Po-chu, and capture of
Ying. Last mention of Sun Wu in SHIH CHI.
505
Yueh makes a raid on Wu in the absence of
its army. Wu is beaten by Ch`in and
evacuates Ying.
504
Ho Lu sends Fu Ch`ai to attack Ch`u.
497
Kou Chien becomes King of Yueh.
496
Wu attacks Yueh, but is defeated by Kou
Chien at Tsui-li. Ho Lu is killed.
494
Fu Ch`ai defeats Kou Chien in the great
battle of Fu-chaio, and enters the capital
of Yueh.
485 or 484
Kou Chien renders homage to Wu. Death of
Wu Tzu-hsu.
482 Kou Chien invades Wu in the absence of Fu
Ch`ai.
478 to 476
Further attacks by Yueh on Wu.
475
Kou Chien lays siege to the capital of Wu.
473
Final defeat and extinction of Wu.
The sentence quoted above from VI. ss. 21
hardly strikes me as one that could have been
written in the full flush of victory. It seems
rather to imply that, for the moment at least, the
tide had turned against Wu, and that she was
getting the worst of the struggle. Hence we may
conclude that our treatise was not in existence in
505, before which date Yueh does not appear to
have scored any notable success against Wu. Ho Lu
died in 496, so that if the book was written for
him, it must have been during the period 505-496,
when there was a lull in the hostilities, Wu
having presumably exhausted by its supreme effort
against Ch`u. On the other hand, if we choose to
disregard the tradition connecting Sun Wu's name
with Ho Lu, it might equally well have seen the
light between 496 and 494, or possibly in the
period 482-473, when Yueh was once again becoming
a very serious menace. [33] We may feel fairly
certain that the author, whoever he may have been,
was not a man of any great eminence in his own
day. On this point the negative testimony of the
TSO CHUAN far outweighs any shred of authority
still attaching to the SHIH CHI, if once its other
facts are discredited. Sun Hsing-yen, however,
makes a feeble attempt to explain the omission of
his name from the great commentary. It was Wu
Tzu-hsu, he says, who got all the credit of Sun
Wu's exploits, because the latter (being an alien)
was not rewarded with an office in the State.
How then did the Sun Tzu legend originate?
It may be that the growing celebrity of the book
imparted by degrees a kind of factitious renown to
its author. It was felt to be only right and
proper that one so well versed in the science of
war should have solid achievements to his credit
as well. Now the capture of Ying was undoubtedly
the greatest feat of arms in Ho Lu's reign; it
made a deep and lasting impression on all the
surrounding states, and raised Wu to the
short-lived zenith of her power. Hence, what more
natural, as time went on, than that the
acknowledged master of strategy, Sun Wu, should be
popularly identified with that campaign, at first
perhaps only in the sense that his brain conceived
and planned it; afterwards, that it was actually
carried out by him in conjunction with Wu Yuan,
[34] Po P`ei and Fu Kai?
It is obvious that any attempt to reconstruct
even the outline of Sun Tzu's life must be based
almost wholly on conjecture. With this necessary
proviso, I should say that he probably entered the
service of Wu about the time of Ho Lu's accession,
and gathered experience, though only in the
capacity of a subordinate officer, during the
intense military activity which marked the first
half of the prince's reign. [35] If he rose to be
a general at all, he certainly was never on an
equal footing with the three above mentioned. He
was doubtless present at the investment and
occupation of Ying, and witnessed Wu's sudden
collapse in the following year. Yueh's attack at
this critical juncture, when her rival was
embarrassed on every side, seems to have convinced
him that this upstart kingdom was the great enemy
against whom every effort would henceforth have to
be directed. Sun Wu was thus a well-seasoned
warrior when he sat down to write his famous book,
which according to my reckoning must have appeared
towards the end, rather than the beginning of Ho
Lu's reign. The story of the women may possibly
have grown out of some real incident occurring
about the same time. As we hear no more of Sun Wu
after this from any source, he is hardly likely to
have survived his patron or to have taken part in
the death-struggle with Yueh, which began with the
disaster at Tsui- li.
If these inferences are approximately
correct, there is a certain irony in the fate
which decreed that China's most illustrious man of
peace should be contemporary with her greatest
writer on war.
* The Text of Sun Tzu *
I have found it difficult to glean much about
the history of Sun Tzu's text. The quotations
that occur in early authors go to show that the
"13 chapters" of which Ssu-ma Ch`ien speaks were
essentially the same as those now extant. We have
his word for it that they were widely circulated
in his day, and can only regret that he refrained
from discussing them on that account. Sun
Hsing-yen says in his preface: --
During the Ch`in and Han dynasties Sun Tzu's
ART OF WAR was in general use amongst military
commanders, but they seem to have treated it as a
work of mysterious import, and were unwilling to
expound it for the benefit of posterity. Thus it
came about that Wei Wu was the first to write a
commentary on it.
As we have already seen, there is no
reasonable ground to suppose that Ts`ao Kung
tampered with the text. But the text itself is
often so obscure, and the number of editions which
appeared from that time onward so great,
especially during the T`ang and Sung dynasties,
that it would be surprising if numerous
corruptions had not managed to creep in. Towards
the middle of the Sung period, by which time all
the chief commentaries on Sun Tzu were in
existence, a certain Chi T`ien-pao published a
work in 15 CHUAN entitled "Sun Tzu with the
collected commentaries of ten writers." There was
another text, with variant readings put forward by
Chu Fu of Ta-hsing, which also had supporters
among the scholars of that period; but in the Ming
editions, Sun Hsing- yen tells us, these readings
were for some reason or other no longer put into
circulation. Thus, until the end of the 18th
century, the text in sole possession of the field
was one derived from Chi T`ien-pao's edition,
although no actual copy of that important work was
known to have survived. That, therefore, is the
text of Sun Tzu which appears in the War section
of the great Imperial encyclopedia printed in
1726, the KU CHIN T`U SHU CHI CH`ENG. Another
copy at my disposal of what is practically the
same text, with slight variations, is that
contained in the "Eleven philosophers of the Chou
and Ch`in dynasties" [1758]. And the Chinese
printed in Capt. Calthrop's first edition is
evidently a similar version which has filtered
through Japanese channels. So things remained
until Sun Hsing-yen [1752-1818], a distinguished
antiquarian and classical scholar, who claimed to
be an actual descendant of Sun Wu, [36]
accidentally discovered a copy of Chi T`ien-pao's
long-lost work, when on a visit to the library of
the Hua-yin temple. [37] Appended to it was the I
SHUO of Cheng Yu-Hsien, mentioned in the T`UNG
CHIH, and also believed to have perished. This is
what Sun Hsing-yen designates as the "original
edition (or text)" -- a rather misleading name,
for it cannot by any means claim to set before us
the text of Sun Tzu in its pristine purity. Chi
T`ien-pao was a careless compiler, and appears to
have been content to reproduce the somewhat
debased version current in his day, without
troubling to collate it with the earliest editions
then available. Fortunately, two versions of Sun
Tzu, even older than the newly discovered work,
were still extant, one buried in the T`UNG TIEN,
Tu Yu's great treatise on the Constitution, the
other similarly enshrined in the T`AI P`ING YU LAN
encyclopedia. In both the complete text is to be
found, though split up into fragments, intermixed
with other matter, and scattered piecemeal over a
number of different sections. Considering that
the YU LAN takes us back to the year 983, and the
T`UNG TIEN about 200 years further still, to the
middle of the T`ang dynasty, the value of these
early transcripts of Sun Tzu can hardly be
overestimated. Yet the idea of utilizing them
does not seem to have occurred to anyone until Sun
Hsing-yen, acting under Government instructions,
undertook a thorough recension of the text. This
is his own account: --
Because of the numerous mistakes in the text
of Sun Tzu which his editors had handed down, the
Government ordered that the ancient edition [of
Chi T`ien-pao] should be used, and that the text
should be revised and corrected throughout. It
happened that Wu Nien-hu, the Governor Pi Kua, and
Hsi, a graduate of the second degree, had all
devoted themselves to this study, probably
surpassing me therein. Accordingly, I have had
the whole work cut on blocks as a textbook for
military men.
The three individuals here referred to had
evidently been occupied on the text of Sun Tzu
prior to Sun Hsing-yen's commission, but we are
left in doubt as to the work they really
accomplished. At any rate, the new edition, when
ultimately produced, appeared in the names of Sun
Hsing-yen and only one co- editor Wu Jen-shi.
They took the "original edition" as their basis,
and by careful comparison with older versions, as
well as the extant commentaries and other sources
of information such as the I SHUO, succeeded in
restoring a very large number of doubtful
passages, and turned out, on the whole, what must
be accepted as the closes approximation we are
ever likely to get to Sun Tzu's original work.
This is what will hereafter be denominated the
"standard text."
The copy which I have used belongs to a
reissue dated 1877. it is in 6 PEN, forming part
of a well-printed set of 23 early philosophical
works in 83 PEN. [38] It opens with a preface by
Sun Hsing-yen (largely quoted in this
introduction), vindicating the traditional view of
Sun Tzu's life and performances, and summing up in
remarkably concise fashion the evidence in its
favor. This is followed by Ts`ao Kung's preface
to his edition, and the biography of Sun Tzu from
the SHIH CHI, both translated above. Then come,
firstly, Cheng Yu-hsien's I SHUO, [39] with
author's preface, and next, a short miscellany of
historical and bibliographical information
entitled SUN TZU HSU LU, compiled by Pi I-hsun.
As regards the body of the work, each separate
sentence is followed by a note on the text, if
required, and then by the various commentaries
appertaining to it, arranged in chronological
order. These we shall now proceed to discuss
briefly, one by one.
* The Commentators *
Sun Tzu can boast an exceptionally long
distinguished roll of commentators, which would do
honor to any classic. Ou-yang Hsiu remarks on
this fact, though he wrote before the tale was
complete, and rather ingeniously explains it by
saying that the artifices of war, being
inexhaustible, must therefore be susceptible of
treatment in a great variety of ways.
1. TS`AO TS`AO or Ts`ao Kung, afterwards
known as Wei Wu Ti [A.D. 155-220]. There is
hardly any room for doubt that the earliest
commentary on Sun Tzu actually came from the pen
of this extraordinary man, whose biography in the
SAN KUO CHIH reads like a romance. One of the
greatest military geniuses that the world has
seen, and Napoleonic in the scale of his
operations, he was especially famed for the
marvelous rapidity of his marches, which has found
expression in the line "Talk of Ts`ao Ts`ao, and
Ts`ao Ts`ao will appear." Ou-yang Hsiu says of him
that he was a great captain who "measured his
strength against Tung Cho, Lu Pu and the two Yuan,
father and son, and vanquished them all; whereupon
he divided the Empire of Han with Wu and Shu, and
made himself king. It is recorded that whenever a
council of war was held by Wei on the eve of a
far-reaching campaign, he had all his calculations
ready; those generals who made use of them did not
lose one battle in ten; those who ran counter to
them in any particular saw their armies
incontinently beaten and put to flight." Ts`ao
Kung's notes on Sun Tzu, models of austere
brevity, are so thoroughly characteristic of the
stern commander known to history, that it is hard
indeed to conceive of them as the work of a mere
LITTERATEUR. Sometimes, indeed, owing to extreme
compression, they are scarcely intelligible and
stand no less in need of a commentary than the
text itself. [40]
2. MENG SHIH. The commentary which has come
down to us under this name is comparatively
meager, and nothing about the author is known.
Even his personal name has not been recorded. Chi
T`ien-pao's edition places him after Chia Lin,and
Ch`ao Kung- wu also assigns him to the T`ang
dynasty, [41] but this is a mistake. In Sun
Hsing-yen's preface, he appears as Meng Shih of
the Liang dynasty [502-557]. Others would
identify him with Meng K`ang of the 3rd century.
He is named in one work as the last of the "Five
Commentators," the others being Wei Wu Ti, Tu Mu,
Ch`en Hao and Chia Lin.
3. LI CH`UAN of the 8th century was a
well-known writer on military tactics. One of his
works has been in constant use down to the present
day. The T`UNG CHIH mentions "Lives of famous
generals from the Chou to the T`ang dynasty" as
written by him. [42] According to Ch`ao Kung-wu
and the T`IEN-I-KO catalogue, he followed a
variant of the text of Sun Tzu which differs
considerably from those now extant. His notes are
mostly short and to the point, and he frequently
illustrates his remarks by anecdotes from Chinese
history.
4. TU YU (died 812) did not publish a
separate commentary on Sun Tzu, his notes being
taken from the T`UNG TIEN, the encyclopedic
treatise on the Constitution which was his life-
work. They are largely repetitions of Ts`ao Kung
and Meng Shih, besides which it is believed that
he drew on the ancient commentaries of Wang Ling
and others. Owing to the peculiar arrangement of
T`UNG TIEN, he has to explain each passage on its
merits, apart from the context, and sometimes his
own explanation does not agree with that of Ts`ao
Kung, whom he always quotes first. Though not
strictly to be reckoned as one of the "Ten
Commentators," he was added to their number by Chi
T`ien-pao, being wrongly placed after his grandson
Tu Mu.
5. TU MU (803-852) is perhaps the best known
as a poet -- a bright star even in the glorious
galaxy of the T`ang period. We learn from Ch`ao
Kung-wu that although he had no practical
experience of war, he was extremely fond of
discussing the subject, and was moreover well read
in the military history of the CH`UN CH`IU and
CHAN KUO eras. His notes, therefore, are well
worth attention. They are very copious, and
replete with historical parallels. The gist of
Sun Tzu's work is thus summarized by him:
"Practice benevolence and justice, but on the
other hand make full use of artifice and measures
of expediency." He further declared that all the
military triumphs and disasters of the thousand
years which had elapsed since Sun Tzu's death
would, upon examination, be found to uphold and
corroborate, in every particular, the maxims
contained in his book. Tu Mu's somewhat spiteful
charge against Ts`ao Kung has already been
considered elsewhere.
6. CH`EN HAO appears to have been a
contemporary of Tu Mu. Ch`ao Kung-wu says that he
was impelled to write a new commentary on Sun Tzu
because Ts`ao Kung's on the one hand was too
obscure and subtle, and that of Tu Mu on the other
too long-winded and diffuse. Ou-yang Hsiu,
writing in the middle of the 11th century, calls
Ts`ao Kung, Tu Mu and Ch`en Hao the three chief
commentators on Sun Tzu, and observes that Ch`en
Hao is continually attacking Tu Mu's shortcomings.
His commentary, though not lacking in merit, must
rank below those of his predecessors.
7. CHIA LIN is known to have lived under the
T`ang dynasty, for his commentary on Sun Tzu is
mentioned in the T`ang Shu and was afterwards
republished by Chi Hsieh of the same dynasty
together with those of Meng Shih and Tu Yu. It is
of somewhat scanty texture, and in point of
quality, too, perhaps the least valuable of the
eleven.
8. MEI YAO-CH`EN (1002-1060), commonly known
by his "style" as Mei Sheng-yu, was, like Tu Mu, a
poet of distinction. His commentary was published
with a laudatory preface by the great Ou-yang
Hsiu, from which we may cull the following: --
Later scholars have misread Sun Tzu,
distorting his words and trying to make them
square with their own one-sided views. Thus,
though commentators have not been lacking, only a
few have proved equal to the task. My friend
Sheng-yu has not fallen into this mistake. In
attempting to provide a critical commentary for
Sun Tzu's work, he does not lose sight of the fact
that these sayings were intended for states
engaged in internecine warfare; that the author is
not concerned with the military conditions
prevailing under the sovereigns of the three
ancient dynasties, [43] nor with the nine punitive
measures prescribed to the Minister of War. [44]
Again, Sun Wu loved brevity of diction, but his
meaning is always deep. Whether the subject be
marching an army, or handling soldiers, or
estimating the enemy, or controlling the forces of
victory, it is always systematically treated; the
sayings are bound together in strict logical
sequence, though this has been obscured by
commentators who have probably failed to grasp
their meaning. In his own commentary, Mei
Sheng-yu has brushed aside all the obstinate
prejudices of these critics, and has tried to
bring out the true meaning of Sun Tzu himself. In
this way, the clouds of confusion have been
dispersed and the sayings made clear. I am
convinced that the present work deserves to be
handed down side by side with the three great
commentaries; and for a great deal that they find
in the sayings, coming generations will have
constant reason to thank my friend Sheng-yu.
Making some allowance for the exuberance of
friendship, I am inclined to endorse this
favorable judgment, and would certainly place him
above Ch`en Hao in order of merit.
9. WANG HSI, also of the Sung dynasty, is
decidedly original in some of his interpretations,
but much less judicious than Mei Yao-ch`en, and on
the whole not a very trustworthy guide. He is
fond of comparing his own commentary with that of
Ts`ao Kung, but the comparison is not often
flattering to him. We learn from Ch`ao Kung-wu
that Wang Hsi revised the ancient text of Sun Tzu,
filling up lacunae and correcting mistakes. [45]
10. HO YEN-HSI of the Sung dynasty. The
personal name of this commentator is given as
above by Cheng Ch`iao in the TUNG CHIH, written
about the middle of the twelfth century, but he
appears simply as Ho Shih in the YU HAI, and Ma
Tuan-lin quotes Ch`ao Kung-wu as saying that his
personal name is unknown. There seems to be no
reason to doubt Cheng Ch`iao's statement,
otherwise I should have been inclined to hazard a
guess and identify him with one Ho Ch`u-fei, the
author of a short treatise on war, who lived in
the latter part of the 11th century. Ho Shih's
commentary, in the words of the T`IEN-I-KO
catalogue, "contains helpful additions" here and
there, but is chiefly remarkable for the copious
extracts taken, in adapted form, from the dynastic
histories and other sources.
11. CHANG YU. The list closes with a
commentator of no great originality perhaps, but
gifted with admirable powers of lucid exposition.
His commentator is based on that of Ts`ao Kung,
whose terse sentences he contrives to expand and
develop in masterly fashion. Without Chang Yu, it
is safe to say that much of Ts`ao Kung's
commentary would have remained cloaked in its
pristine obscurity and therefore valueless. His
work is not mentioned in the Sung history, the
T`UNG K`AO, or the YU HAI, but it finds a niche in
the T`UNG CHIH, which also names him as the author
of the "Lives of Famous Generals." [46]
It is rather remarkable that the last-named
four should all have flourished within so short a
space of time. Ch`ao Kung-wu accounts for it by
saying: "During the early years of the Sung
dynasty the Empire enjoyed a long spell of peace,
and men ceased to practice the art of war. but
when [Chao] Yuan-hao's rebellion came [1038-42]
and the frontier generals were defeated time after
time, the Court made strenuous inquiry for men
skilled in war, and military topics became the
vogue amongst all the high officials. Hence it is
that the commentators of Sun Tzu in our dynasty
belong mainly to that period. [47]
Besides these eleven commentators, there are
several others whose work has not come down to us.
The SUI SHU mentions four, namely Wang Ling (often
quoted by Tu Yu as Wang Tzu); Chang Tzu- shang;
Chia Hsu of Wei; [48] and Shen Yu of Wu. The
T`ANG SHU adds Sun Hao, and the T`UNG CHIH Hsiao
Chi, while the T`U SHU mentions a Ming
commentator, Huang Jun-yu. It is possible that
some of these may have been merely collectors and
editors of other commentaries, like Chi T`ien-pao
and Chi Hsieh, mentioned above.
* Appreciations of Sun Tzu *
Sun Tzu has exercised a potent fascination
over the minds of some of China's greatest men.
Among the famous generals who are known to have
studied his pages with enthusiasm may be mentioned
Han Hsin (d. 196 B.C.), [49] Feng I (d. 34
A.D.), [50] Lu Meng (d. 219), [51] and Yo Fei
(1103-1141). [52] The opinion of Ts`ao Kung, who
disputes with Han Hsin the highest place in
Chinese military annals, has already been
recorded. [53] Still more remarkable, in one way,
is the testimony of purely literary men, such as
Su Hsun (the father of Su Tung-p`o), who wrote
several essays on military topics, all of which
owe their chief inspiration to Sun Tzu. The
following short passage by him is preserved in the
YU HAI: [54] --
Sun Wu's saying, that in war one cannot make
certain of conquering, [55] is very different
indeed from what other books tell us. [56] Wu
Ch`i was a man of the same stamp as Sun Wu: they
both wrote books on war, and they are linked
together in popular speech as "Sun and Wu." But Wu
Ch`i's remarks on war are less weighty, his rules
are rougher and more crudely stated, and there is
not the same unity of plan as in Sun Tzu's work,
where the style is terse, but the meaning fully
brought out.
The following is an extract from the
"Impartial Judgments in the Garden of Literature"
by Cheng Hou: --
Sun Tzu's 13 chapters are not only the staple
and base of all military men's training, but also
compel the most careful attention of scholars and
men of letters. His sayings are terse yet
elegant, simple yet profound, perspicuous and
eminently practical. Such works as the LUN YU,
the I CHING and the great Commentary, [57] as well
as the writings of Mencius, Hsun K`uang and Yang
Chu, all fall below the level of Sun Tzu.
Chu Hsi, commenting on this, fully admits the
first part of the criticism, although he dislikes
the audacious comparison with the venerated
classical works. Language of this sort, he says,
"encourages a ruler's bent towards unrelenting
warfare and reckless militarism."
* Apologies for War *
Accustomed as we are to think of China as the
greatest peace-loving nation on earth, we are in
some danger of forgetting that her experience of
war in all its phases has also been such as no
modern State can parallel. Her long military
annals stretch back to a point at which they are
lost in the mists of time. She had built the
Great Wall and was maintaining a huge standing
army along her frontier centuries before the first
Roman legionary was seen on the Danube. What with
the perpetual collisions of the ancient feudal
States, the grim conflicts with Huns, Turks and
other invaders after the centralization of
government, the terrific upheavals which
accompanied the overthrow of so many dynasties,
besides the countless rebellions and minor
disturbances that have flamed up and flickered out
again one by one, it is hardly too much to say
that the clash of arms has never ceased to resound
in one portion or another of the Empire.
No less remarkable is the succession of
illustrious captains to whom China can point with
pride. As in all countries, the greatest are fond
of emerging at the most fateful crises of her
history. Thus, Po Ch`i stands out conspicuous in
the period when Ch`in was entering upon her final
struggle with the remaining independent states.
The stormy years which followed the break-up of
the Ch`in dynasty are illuminated by the
transcendent genius of Han Hsin. When the House
of Han in turn is tottering to its fall, the great
and baleful figure of Ts`ao Ts`ao dominates the
scene. And in the establishment of the T`ang
dynasty,one of the mightiest tasks achieved by
man, the superhuman energy of Li Shih-min
(afterwards the Emperor T`ai Tsung) was seconded
by the brilliant strategy of Li Ching. None of
these generals need fear comparison with the
greatest names in the military history of Europe.
In spite of all this, the great body of
Chinese sentiment, from Lao Tzu downwards, and
especially as reflected in the standard literature
of Confucianism, has been consistently pacific and
intensely opposed to militarism in any form. It
is such an uncommon thing to find any of the
literati defending warfare on principle, that I
have thought it worth while to collect and
translate a few passages in which the unorthodox
view is upheld. The following, by Ssu-ma Ch`ien,
shows that for all his ardent admiration of
Confucius, he was yet no advocate of peace at any
price: --
Military weapons are the means used by the
Sage to punish violence and cruelty, to give peace
to troublous times, to remove difficulties and
dangers, and to succor those who are in peril.
Every animal with blood in its veins and horns on
its head will fight when it is attacked. How much
more so will man, who carries in his breast the
faculties of love and hatred, joy and anger! When
he is pleased, a feeling of affection springs up
within him; when angry, his poisoned sting is
brought into play. That is the natural law which
governs his being.... What then shall be said of
those scholars of our time, blind to all great
issues, and without any appreciation of relative
values, who can only bark out their stale formulas
about "virtue" and "civilization," condemning the
use of military weapons? They will surely bring
our country to impotence and dishonor and the loss
of her rightful heritage; or, at the very least,
they will bring about invasion and rebellion,
sacrifice of territory and general enfeeblement.
Yet they obstinately refuse to modify the position
they have taken up. The truth is that, just as in
the family the teacher must not spare the rod, and
punishments cannot be dispensed with in the State,
so military chastisement can never be allowed to
fall into abeyance in the Empire. All one can say
is that this power will be exercised wisely by
some, foolishly by others, and that among those
who bear arms some will be loyal and others
rebellious. [58]
The next piece is taken from Tu Mu's preface
to his commentary on Sun Tzu: --
War may be defined as punishment, which is
one of the functions of government. It was the
profession of Chung Yu and Jan Ch`iu, both
disciples of Confucius. Nowadays, the holding of
trials and hearing of litigation, the imprisonment
of offenders and their execution by flogging in
the market- place, are all done by officials. But
the wielding of huge armies, the throwing down of
fortified cities, the hauling of women and
children into captivity, and the beheading of
traitors -- this is also work which is done by
officials. The objects of the rack and of
military weapons are essentially the same. There
is no intrinsic difference between the punishment
of flogging and cutting off heads in war. For the
lesser infractions of law, which are easily dealt
with, only a small amount of force need be
employed: hence the use of military weapons and
wholesale decapitation. In both cases, however,
the end in view is to get rid of wicked people,
and to give comfort and relief to the good....
Chi-sun asked Jan Yu, saying: "Have you,
Sir, acquired your military aptitude by study, or
is it innate?" Jan Yu replied: "It has been
acquired by study." [59] "How can that be so,"
said Chi-sun, "seeing that you are a disciple of
Confucius?" "It is a fact," replied Jan Yu; "I was
taught by Confucius. It is fitting that the great
Sage should exercise both civil and military
functions, though to be sure my instruction in the
art of fighting has not yet gone very far."
Now, who the author was of this rigid
distinction between the "civil" and the
"military," and the limitation of each to a
separate sphere of action, or in what year of
which dynasty it was first introduced, is more
than I can say. But, at any rate, it has come
about that the members of the governing class are
quite afraid of enlarging on military topics, or
do so only in a shamefaced manner. If any are
bold enough to discuss the subject, they are at
once set down as eccentric individuals of coarse
and brutal propensities. This is an extraordinary
instance in which, through sheer lack of
reasoning, men unhappily lose sight of fundamental
principles.
When the Duke of Chou was minister under
Ch`eng Wang, he regulated ceremonies and made
music, and venerated the arts of scholarship and
learning; yet when the barbarians of the River
Huai revolted, [60] he sallied forth and chastised
them. When Confucius held office under the Duke
of Lu, and a meeting was convened at Chia-ku, [61]
he said: "If pacific negotiations are in
progress, warlike preparations should have been
made beforehand." He rebuked and shamed the
Marquis of Ch`i, who cowered under him and dared
not proceed to violence. How can it be said that
these two great Sages had no knowledge of military
matters?
We have seen that the great Chu Hsi held Sun
Tzu in high esteem. He also appeals to the
authority of the Classics: --
Our Master Confucius, answering Duke Ling of
Wei, said: "I have never studied matters
connected with armies and battalions." [62]
Replying to K`ung Wen-tzu, he said: I have not
been instructed about buff-coats and weapons." But
if we turn to the meeting at Chia-ku, we find that
he used armed force against the men of Lai, so
that the marquis of Ch`i was overawed. Again,
when the inhabitants of Pi revolted, the ordered
his officers to attack them, whereupon they were
defeated and fled in confusion. He once uttered
the words: "If I fight, I conquer." [63] And Jan
Yu also said: "The Sage exercises both civil and
military functions." [64] Can it be a fact that
Confucius never studied or received instruction in
the art of war? We can only say that he did not
specially choose matters connected with armies and
fighting to be the subject of his teaching.
Sun Hsing-yen, the editor of Sun Tzu, writes
in similar strain: --
Confucius said: "I am unversed in military
matters." [65] He also said: "If I fight, I
conquer." Confucius ordered ceremonies and
regulated music. Now war constitutes one of the
five classes of State ceremonial, [66] and must
not be treated as an independent branch of study.
Hence, the words "I am unversed in" must be taken
to mean that there are things which even an
inspired Teacher does not know. Those who have to
lead an army and devise stratagems, must learn the
art of war. But if one can command the services
of a good general like Sun Tzu, who was employed
by Wu Tzu-hsu, there is no need to learn it
oneself. Hence the remark added by Confucius:
"If I fight, I conquer."
The men of the present day, however,
willfully interpret these words of Confucius in
their narrowest sense, as though he meant that
books on the art of war were not worth reading.
With blind persistency, they adduce the example of
Chao Kua, who pored over his father's books to no
purpose, [67] as a proof that all military theory
is useless. Again, seeing that books on war have
to do with such things as opportunism in designing
plans, and the conversion of spies, they hold that
the art is immoral and unworthy of a sage. These
people ignore the fact that the studies of our
scholars and the civil administration of our
officials also require steady application and
practice before efficiency is reached. The
ancients were particularly chary of allowing mere
novices to botch their work. [68] Weapons are
baneful [69] and fighting perilous; and useless
unless a general is in constant practice, he ought
not to hazard other men's lives in battle. [70]
Hence it is essential that Sun Tzu's 13 chapters
should be studied.
Hsiang Liang used to instruct his nephew Chi
[71] in the art of war. Chi got a rough idea of
the art in its general bearings, but would not
pursue his studies to their proper outcome, the
consequence being that he was finally defeated and
overthrown. He did not realize that the tricks
and artifices of war are beyond verbal
computation. Duke Hsiang of Sung and King Yen of
Hsu were brought to destruction by their misplaced
humanity. The treacherous and underhand nature of
war necessitates the use of guile and stratagem
suited to the occasion. There is a case on record
of Confucius himself having violated an extorted
oath, [72] and also of his having left the Sung
State in disguise. [73] Can we then recklessly
arraign Sun Tzu for disregarding truth and
honesty?
* Bibliography *
The following are the oldest Chinese
treatises on war, after Sun Tzu. The notes on
each have been drawn principally from the SSU K`U
CH`UAN SHU CHIEN MING MU LU, ch. 9, fol. 22 sqq.
1. WU TZU, in 1 CHUAN or 6 chapters. By Wu
Ch`i (d. 381 B.C.). A genuine work. See SHIH
CHI, ch. 65.
2. SSU-MA FA, in 1 CHUAN or 5 chapters.
Wrongly attributed to Ssu-ma Jang-chu of the 6th
century B.C. Its date, however, must be early, as
the customs of the three ancient dynasties are
constantly to be met within its pages. See SHIH
CHI, ch. 64.
The SSU K`U CH`UAN SHU (ch. 99, f. 1)
remarks that the oldest three treatises on war,
SUN TZU, WU TZU and SSU-MA FA, are, generally
speaking, only concerned with things strictly
military -- the art of producing, collecting,
training and drilling troops, and the correct
theory with regard to measures of expediency,
laying plans, transport of goods and the handling
of soldiers -- in strong contrast to later works,
in which the science of war is usually blended
with metaphysics, divination and magical arts in
general.
3. LIU T`AO, in 6 CHUAN, or 60 chapters.
Attributed to Lu Wang (or Lu Shang, also known as
T`ai Kung) of the 12th century B.C. [74] But its
style does not belong to the era of the Three
Dynasties. Lu Te-ming (550-625 A.D.) mentions the
work, and enumerates the headings of the six
sections so that the forgery cannot have been
later than Sui dynasty.
4. WEI LIAO TZU, in 5 CHUAN. Attributed to
Wei Liao (4th cent. B.C.), who studied under the
famous Kuei-ku Tzu. The work appears to have been
originally in 31 chapters, whereas the text we
possess contains only 24. Its matter is sound
enough in the main, though the strategical devices
differ considerably from those of the Warring
States period. It is been furnished with a
commentary by the well-known Sung philosopher
Chang Tsai.
5. SAN LUEH, in 3 CHUAN. Attributed to
Huang-shih Kung, a legendary personage who is said
to have bestowed it on Chang Liang (d. 187 B.C.)
in an interview on a bridge. But here again, the
style is not that of works dating from the Ch`in
or Han period. The Han Emperor Kuang Wu [25-57
A.D.] apparently quotes from it in one of his
proclamations; but the passage in question may
have been inserted later on, in order to prove the
genuineness of the work. We shall not be far out
if we refer it to the Northern Sung period
[420-478 A.D.], or somewhat earlier.
6. LI WEI KUNG WEN TUI, in 3 sections.
Written in the form of a dialogue between T`ai
Tsung and his great general Li Ching, it is
usually ascribed to the latter. Competent
authorities consider it a forgery, though the
author was evidently well versed in the art of
war.
7. LI CHING PING FA (not to be confounded
with the foregoing) is a short treatise in 8
chapters, preserved in the T`ung Tien, but not
published separately. This fact explains its
omission from the SSU K`U CH`UAN SHU.
8. WU CH`I CHING, in 1 CHUAN. Attributed to
the legendary minister Feng Hou, with exegetical
notes by Kung-sun Hung of the Han dynasty (d. 121
B.C.), and said to have been eulogized by the
celebrated general Ma Lung (d. 300 A.D.). Yet
the earliest mention of it is in the SUNG CHIH.
Although a forgery, the work is well put together.
Considering the high popular estimation in
which Chu-ko Liang has always been held, it is not
surprising to find more than one work on war
ascribed to his pen. Such are (1) the SHIH LIU
TS`E (1 CHUAN), preserved in the YUNG LO TA TIEN;
(2) CHIANG YUAN (1 CHUAN); and (3) HSIN SHU (1
CHUAN), which steals wholesale from Sun Tzu. None
of these has the slightest claim to be considered
genuine.
Most of the large Chinese encyclopedias
contain extensive sections devoted to the
literature of war. The following references may
be found useful: --
T`UNG TIEN (circa 800 A.D.), ch. 148-162.
T`AI P`ING YU LAN (983), ch. 270-359.
WEN HSIEN TUNG K`AO (13th cent.), ch. 221.
YU HAI (13th cent.), ch. 140, 141.
SAN TS`AI T`U HUI (16th cent).
KUANG PO WU CHIH (1607), ch. 31, 32.
CH`IEN CH`IO LEI SHU (1632), ch. 75.
YUAN CHIEN LEI HAN (1710), ch. 206-229.
KU CHIN T`U SHU CHI CH`ENG (1726), section
XXX, esp. ch. 81-90.
HSU WEN HSIEN T`UNG K`AO (1784), ch. 121-134.
HUANG CH`AO CHING SHIH WEN PIEN (1826), ch.
76, 77.
The bibliographical sections of certain
historical works also deserve mention: --
CH`IEN HAN SHU, ch. 30.
SUI SHU, ch. 32-35.
CHIU T`ANG SHU, ch. 46, 47.
HSIN T`ANG SHU, ch. 57,60.
SUNG SHIH, ch. 202-209.
T`UNG CHIH (circa 1150), ch. 68.
To these of course must be added the great
Catalogue of the Imperial Library: --
SSU K`U CH`UAN SHU TSUNG MU T`I YAO (1790),
ch. 99, 100.
Footnotes
1. SHI CHI, ch. 65.
2. He reigned from 514 to 496 B.C.
3. SHI CHI, ch. 130.
4. The appellation of Nang Wa.
5. SHI CHI, ch. 31.
6. SHI CHI, ch. 25.
7. The appellation of Hu Yen, mentioned in ch.
39 under the year 637.
8. Wang-tzu Ch`eng-fu, ch. 32, year 607.
9. The mistake is natural enough. Native critics
refer to a work of the Han dynasty, which says:
"Ten LI outside the WU gate [of the city of Wu,
now Soochow in Kiangsu] there is a great mound,
raised to commemorate the entertainment of Sun Wu
of Ch`i, who excelled in the art of war, by the
King of Wu."
10. "They attached strings to wood to make bows,
and sharpened wood to make arrows. The use of
bows and arrows is to keep the Empire in awe."
11. The son and successor of Ho Lu. He was
finally defeated and overthrown by Kou chien, King
of Yueh, in 473 B.C. See post.
12. King Yen of Hsu, a fabulous being, of whom
Sun Hsing-yen says in his preface: "His humanity
brought him to destruction."
13. The passage I have put in brackets is omitted
in the T`U SHU, and may be an interpolation. It
was known, however to Chang Shou-chieh of the
T`ang dynasty, and appears in the T`AI P`ING YU
LAN.
14. Ts`ao Kung seems to be thinking of the first
part of chap. II, perhaps especially of ss. 8.
15. See chap. XI.
16. On the other hand, it is noteworthy that WU
TZU, which is not in 6 chapters, has 48 assigned
to it in the HAN CHIH. Likewise, the CHUNG YUNG
is credited with 49 chapters, though now only in
one only. In the case of very short works, one is
tempted to think that P`IEN might simply mean
"leaves."
17. Yeh Shih of the Sung dynasty [1151-1223].
18. He hardly deserves to be bracketed with
assassins.
19. See Chapter 7, ss. 27 and Chapter 11, ss.
28.
20. See Chapter 11, ss. 28. Chuan Chu is the
abbreviated form of his name.
21. I.e. Po P`ei. See ante.
22. The nucleus of this work is probably genuine,
though large additions have been made by later
hands. Kuan chung died in 645 B.C.
23. See infra, beginning of INTRODUCTION.
24. I do not know what this work, unless it be
the last chapter of another work. Why that
chapter should be singled out, however, is not
clear.
25. About 480 B.C.
26. That is, I suppose, the age of Wu Wang and
Chou Kung.
27. In the 3rd century B.C.
28. Ssu-ma Jang-chu, whose family name was T`ien,
lived in the latter half of the 6th century B.C.,
and is also believed to have written a work on
war. See SHIH CHI, ch. 64, and infra at the
beginning of the INTRODUCTION.
29. See Legge's Classics, vol. V, Prolegomena p.
27. Legge thinks that the TSO CHUAN must have
been written in the 5th century, but not before
424 B.C.
30. See MENCIUS III. 1. iii. 13-20.
31. When Wu first appears in the CH`UN CH`IU in
584, it is already at variance with its powerful
neighbor. The CH`UN CH`IU first mentions Yueh in
537, the TSO CHUAN in 601.
32. This is explicitly stated in the TSO CHUAN,
XXXII, 2.
33. There is this to be said for the later
period, that the feud would tend to grow more
bitter after each encounter, and thus more fully
justify the language used in XI. ss. 30.
34. With Wu Yuan himself the case is just the
reverse: -- a spurious treatise on war has been
fathered on him simply because he was a great
general. Here we have an obvious inducement to
forgery. Sun Wu, on the other hand, cannot have
been widely known to fame in the 5th century.
35. From TSO CHUAN: "From the date of King
Chao's accession [515] there was no year in which
Ch`u was not attacked by Wu."
36. Preface ad fin: "My family comes from Lo-an,
and we are really descended from Sun Tzu. I am
ashamed to say that I only read my ancestor's work
from a literary point of view, without
comprehending the military technique. So long
have we been enjoying the blessings of peace!"
37. Hoa-yin is about 14 miles from T`ung-kuan on
the eastern border of Shensi. The temple in
question is still visited by those about the
ascent of the Western Sacred Mountain. It is
mentioned in a text as being "situated five LI
east of the district city of Hua-yin. The temple
contains the Hua-shan tablet inscribed by the
T`ang Emperor Hsuan Tsung [713-755]."
38. See my "Catalogue of Chinese Books" (Luzac &
Co., 1908), no. 40.
39. This is a discussion of 29 difficult passages
in Sun Tzu.
40. Cf. Catalogue of the library of Fan family
at Ningpo: "His commentary is frequently obscure;
it furnishes a clue, but does not fully develop
the meaning."
41. WEN HSIEN T`UNG K`AO, ch. 221.
42. It is interesting to note that M. Pelliot
has recently discovered chapters 1, 4 and 5 of
this lost work in the "Grottos of the Thousand
Buddhas." See B.E.F.E.O., t. VIII, nos. 3-4, p.
525.
43. The Hsia, the Shang and the Chou. Although
the last-named was nominally existent in Sun Tzu's
day, it retained hardly a vestige of power, and
the old military organization had practically gone
by the board. I can suggest no other explanation
of the passage.
44. See CHOU LI, xxix. 6-10.
45. T`UNG K`AO, ch. 221.
46. This appears to be still extant. See Wylie's
"Notes," p. 91 (new edition).
47. T`UNG K`AO, loc. cit.
48. A notable person in his day. His biography
is given in the SAN KUO CHIH, ch. 10.
49. See XI. ss. 58, note.
50. HOU HAN SHU, ch. 17 ad init.
51. SAN KUO CHIH, ch. 54.
52. SUNG SHIH, ch. 365 ad init.
53. The few Europeans who have yet had an
opportunity of acquainting themselves with Sun Tzu
are not behindhand in their praise. In this
connection, I may perhaps be excused for quoting
from a letter from Lord Roberts, to whom the
sheets of the present work were submitted previous
to publication: "Many of Sun Wu's maxims are
perfectly applicable to the present day, and no.
11 [in Chapter VIII] is one that the people of
this country would do well to take to heart."
54. Ch. 140.
55. See IV. ss. 3.
56. The allusion may be to Mencius VI. 2. ix.
2.
57. The TSO CHUAN.
58. SHIH CHI, ch. 25, fol. I.
59. Cf. SHIH CHI, ch 47.
60. See SHU CHING, preface ss. 55.
61. See SHIH CHI, ch. 47.
62. Lun Yu, XV. 1.
63. I failed to trace this utterance.
64. Supra.
65. Supra.
66. The other four being worship, mourning,
entertainment of guests, and festive rites. See
SHU CHING, ii. 1. III. 8, and CHOU LI, IX.
fol. 49.
67. See XIII. ss. 11, note.
68. This is a rather obscure allusion to the TSO
CHUAN, where Tzu-ch`an says: "If you have a piece
of beautiful brocade, you will not employ a mere
learner to make it up."
69. Cf. TAO TE CHING, ch. 31.
70. Sun Hsing-yen might have quoted Confucius
again. See LUN YU, XIII. 29, 30.
71. Better known as Hsiang Yu [233-202 B.C.].
72. SHIH CHI, ch. 47.
73. SHIH CHI, ch. 38.
74. See XIII. ss. 27, note. Further details on
T`ai Kung will be found in the SHIH CHI, ch. 32
ad init. Besides the tradition which makes him a
former minister of Chou Hsin, two other accounts
of him are there given, according to which he
would appear to have been first raised from a
humble private station by Wen Wang.
*****
