Gutenberg Art of War(Giles' notes)
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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Preface to the Project Gutenburg Etext--------------------------------------
When Lionel Giles began his translation of Sun Tzu's ART OFWAR, the work was virtually unknown in Europe. Its introductionto Europe began in 1782 when a French Jesuit Father living inChina, Joseph Amiot, acquired a copy of it, and translated itinto French. It was not a good translation because, according toDr. Giles, "[I]t contains a great deal that Sun Tzu did notwrite, and very little indeed of what he did." The first translation into English was published in 1905 inTokyo by Capt. E. F. Calthrop, R.F.A. However, this translationis, in the words of Dr. Giles, "excessively bad." He goesfurther in this criticism: "It is not merely a question ofdownright blunders, from which none can hope to be wholly exempt.Omissions were frequent; hard passages were willfully distortedor slurred over. Such offenses are less pardonable. They wouldnot be tolerated in any edition of a Latin or Greek classic, anda similar standard of honesty ought to be insisted upon intranslations from Chinese." In 1908 a new edition of Capt.Calthrop's translation was published in London. It was animprovement on the first -- omissions filled up and numerousmistakes corrected -- but new errors were created in the process.Dr. Giles, in justifying his translation, wrote: "It was notundertaken out of any inflated estimate of my own powers; but Icould not help feeling that Sun Tzu deserved a better fate thanhad befallen him, and I knew that, at any rate, I could hardlyfail to improve on the work of my predecessors." Clearly, Dr. Giles' work established much of the groundworkfor the work of later translators who published their owneditions. Of the later editions of the ART OF WAR I haveexamined; two feature Giles' edited translation and notes, theother two present the same basic information from the ancientChinese commentators found in the Giles edition. Of these four,Giles' 1910 edition is the most scholarly and presents the readeran incredible amount of information concerning Sun Tzu's text,much more than any other translation. The Giles' edition of the ART OF WAR, as stated above, was ascholarly work. Dr. Giles was a leading sinologue at the timeand an assistant in the Department of Oriental Printed Books andManuscripts in the British Museum. Apparently he wanted toproduce a definitive edition, superior to anything else thatexisted and perhaps something that would become a standardtranslation. It was the best translation available for 50 years.But apparently there was not much interest in Sun Tzu in English-speaking countries since it took the start of the SecondWorld War to renew interest in his work. Several peoplepublished unsatisfactory English translations of Sun Tzu. In1944, Dr. Giles' translation was edited and published in theUnited States in a series of military science books. But itwasn't until 1963 that a good English translation (by Samuel B.Griffith and still in print) was published that was an equal toGiles' translation. While this translation is more lucid thanDr. Giles' translation, it lacks his copious notes that make hisso interesting. Dr. Giles produced a work primarily intended for scholars ofthe Chinese civilization and language. It contains the Chinesetext of Sun Tzu, the English translation, and voluminous notesalong with numerous footnotes. Unfortunately, some of his notesand footnotes contain Chinese characters; some are completelyChinese. Thus, a conversion to a Latin alphabet etext wasdifficult. I did the conversion in complete ignorance of Chinese(except for what I learned while doing the conversion). Thus, Ifaced the difficult task of paraphrasing it while retaining asmuch of the important text as I could. Every paraphraserepresents a loss; thus I did what I could to retain as much ofthe text as possible. Because the 1910 text contains a Chineseconcordance, I was able to transliterate proper names, books, andthe like at the risk of making the text more obscure. However,the text, on the whole, is quite satisfactory for the casualreader, a transformation made possible by conversion to an etext.However, I come away from this task with the feeling of lossbecause I know that someone with a background in Chinese can do abetter job than I did; any such attempt would be welcomed.
Bob Sutton al876@cleveland.freenet.edu bobs@gnu.ai.mit.edu
-----------------------------------------------------------------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 totell us in this chapter. But he proceeds to give a biography ofhis descendant, Sun Pin, born about a hundred years after hisfamous ancestor's death, and also the outstanding military geniusof his time. The historian speaks of him too as Sun Tzu, and inhis preface we read: "Sun Tzu had his feet cut off and yetcontinued 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 histreacherous rival P`ang Chuan, will be found briefly related inChapter V. ss. 19, note. To return to the elder Sun Tzu. He is mentioned in twoother 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 SunWu. He does not appear to have survived his patron, who diedfrom 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 nodoubt about the reality of Sun Wu as an historical personage; andwith one exception, to be noticed presently, he is by far themost important authority on the period in question. It will notbe necessary, therefore, to say much of such a work as the WUYUEH CH`UN CH`IU, which is supposed to have been written by ChaoYeh of the 1st century A.D. The attribution is somewhatdoubtful; but even if it were otherwise, his account would be oflittle value, based as it is on the SHIH CHI and expanded withromantic details. The story of Sun Tzu will be found, for whatit is worth, in chapter 2. The only new points in it worthnoting are: (1) Sun Tzu was first recommended to Ho Lu by WuTzu-hsu. (2) He is called a native of Wu. (3) He had previouslylived a retired life, and his contemporaries were unaware of hisability. The following passage occurs in the Huai-nan Tzu: "Whensovereign and ministers show perversity of mind, it is impossibleeven for a Sun Tzu to encounter the foe." Assuming that thiswork is genuine (and hitherto no doubt has been cast upon it), wehave here the earliest direct reference for Sun Tzu, for Huai-nanTzu died in 122 B.C., many years before the SHIH CHI was given tothe world. Liu Hsiang (80-9 B.C.) says: "The reason why Sun Tzu at thehead of 30,000 men beat Ch`u with 200,000 is that the latter wereundisciplined." Teng Ming-shih informs us that the surname "Sun" wasbestowed on Sun Wu's grandfather by Duke Ching of Ch`i [547-490B.C.]. Sun Wu's father Sun P`ing, rose to be a Minister of Statein Ch`i, and Sun Wu himself, whose style was Ch`ang-ch`ing, fledto Wu on account of the rebellion which was being fomented by thekindred of T`ien Pao. He had three sons, of whom the second,named Ming, was the father of Sun Pin. According to this accountthen, Pin was the grandson of Wu, which, considering that SunPin's victory over Wei was gained in 341 B.C., may be dismissedas chronological impossible. Whence these data were obtained byTeng Ming-shih I do not know, but of course no reliance whatevercan be placed in them. An interesting document which has survived from the close ofthe Han period is the short preface written by the Great Ts`aoTs`ao, or Wei Wu Ti, for his edition of Sun Tzu. I shall give itin 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 explicitstatement that the 13 chapters were specially composed for KingHo 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 anentry which has given rise to much discussion: "The works of SunTzu 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 toSsu-ma Ch`ien, or those we possess today. Chang Shou-chiehrefers to an edition of Sun Tzu's ART OF WAR of which the "13chapters" formed the first CHUAN, adding that there were twoother CHUAN besides. This has brought forth a theory, that thebulk of these 82 chapters consisted of other writings of Sun Tzu-- we should call them apocryphal -- similar to the WEN TA, ofwhich a specimen dealing with the Nine Situations [15] ispreserved in the T`UNG TIEN, and another in Ho Shin's commentary.It is suggested that before his interview with Ho Lu, Sun Tzu hadonly written the 13 chapters, but afterwards composed a sort ofexegesis in the form of question and answer between himself andthe King. Pi I-hsun, the author of the SUN TZU HSU LU, backsthis up with a quotation from the WU YUEH CH`UN CH`IU: "The Kingof Wu summoned Sun Tzu, and asked him questions about the art ofwar. Each time he set forth a chapter of his work, the Kingcould not find words enough to praise him." As he points out, ifthe whole work was expounded on the same scale as in the above-mentioned fragments, the total number of chapters could not failto be considerable. Then the numerous other treatises attributedto Sun Tzu might be included. The fact that the HAN CHIHmentions no work of Sun Tzu except the 82 P`IEN, whereas the Suiand T`ang bibliographies give the titles of others in addition tothe "13 chapters," is good proof, Pi I-hsun thinks, that all ofthese were contained in the 82 P`IEN. Without pinning our faithto the accuracy of details supplied by the WU YUEH CH`UN CH`IU,or admitting the genuineness of any of the treatises cited by PiI-hsun, we may see in this theory a probable solution of themystery. Between Ssu-ma Ch`ien and Pan Ku there was plenty oftime for a luxuriant crop of forgeries to have grown up under themagic name of Sun Tzu, and the 82 P`IEN may very well represent acollected edition of these lumped together with the originalwork. It is also possible, though less likely, that some of themexisted in the time of the earlier historian and were purposelyignored by him. [16] Tu Mu's conjecture seems to be based on a passage whichstates: "Wei Wu Ti strung together Sun Wu's Art of War," whichin turn may have resulted from a misunderstanding of the finalwords of Ts`ao King's preface. This, as Sun Hsing-yen pointsout, is only a modest way of saying that he made an explanatoryparaphrase, or in other words, wrote a commentary on it. On thewhole, this theory has met with very little acceptance. Thus,the SSU K`U CH`UAN SHU says: "The mention of the 13 chapters inthe SHIH CHI shows that they were in existence before the HANCHIH, and that latter accretions are not to be considered part ofthe original work. Tu Mu's assertion can certainly not be takenas proof." There is every reason to suppose, then, that the 13 chaptersexisted in the time of Ssu-ma Ch`ien practically as we have themnow. That the work was then well known he tells us in so manywords. "Sun Tzu's 13 Chapters and Wu Ch`i's Art of War are thetwo books that people commonly refer to on the subject ofmilitary matters. Both of them are widely distributed, so I willnot discuss them here." But as we go further back, seriousdifficulties begin to arise. The salient fact which has to befaced is that the TSO CHUAN, the greatest contemporary record,makes no mention whatsoever of Sun Wu, either as a general or asa writer. It is natural, in view of this awkward circumstance,that many scholars should not only cast doubt on the story of SunWu as given in the SHIH CHI, but even show themselves franklyskeptical as to the existence of the man at all. The mostpowerful presentment of this side of the case is to be found inthe 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 thatSun 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 atleast shared in these exploits. The fact may or may not besignificant; but it is nowhere explicitly stated in the SHIH CHIeither that Sun Tzu was general on the occasion of the taking ofYing, or that he even went there at all. Moreover, as we knowthat Wu Yuan and Po P`ei both took part in the expedition, andalso that its success was largely due to the dash and enterpriseof Fu Kai, Ho Lu's younger brother, it is not easy to see how yetanother general could have played a very prominent part in thesame 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-maCh`ien's history, are inclined to accept the date traditionallyassigned to the work which passes under his name. The author ofthe HSU LU fails to appreciate this distinction, and consequentlyhis bitter attack on Ch`en Chen-sun really misses its mark. Hemakes one of two points, however, which certainly tell in favorof the high antiquity of our "13 chapters." "Sun Tzu," he says,"must have lived in the age of Ching Wang [519-476], because heis frequently plagiarized in subsequent works of the Chou, Ch`inand Han dynasties." The two most shameless offenders in thisrespect are Wu Ch`i and Huai-nan Tzu, both of them importanthistorical personages in their day. The former lived only acentury after the alleged date of Sun Tzu, and his death is knownto have taken place in 381 B.C. It was to him, according to LiuHsiang, that Tseng Shen delivered the TSO CHUAN, which had beenentrusted to him by its author. [29] Now the fact thatquotations from the ART OF WAR, acknowledged or otherwise, are tobe found in so many authors of different epochs, establishes avery strong anterior to them all, -- in other words, that SunTzu's treatise was already in existence towards the end of the5th century B.C. Further proof of Sun Tzu's antiquity isfurnished by the archaic or wholly obsolete meanings attaching toa number of the words he uses. A list of these, which mightperhaps be extended, is given in the HSU LU; and though some ofthe interpretations are doubtful, the main argument is hardlyaffected thereby. Again, it must not be forgotten that Yeh Shui-hsin, a scholar and critic of the first rank, deliberatelypronounces the style of the 13 chapters to belong to the earlypart of the fifth century. Seeing that he is actually engaged inan attempt to disprove the existence of Sun Wu himself, we may besure that he would not have hesitated to assign the work to alater date had he not honestly believed the contrary. And it isprecisely on such a point that the judgment of an educatedChinaman will carry most weight. Other internal evidence is notfar to seek. Thus in XIII. ss. 1, there is an unmistakableallusion to the ancient system of land-tenure which had alreadypassed away by the time of Mencius, who was anxious to see itrevived in a modified form. [30] The only warfare Sun Tzu knowsis that carried on between the various feudal princes, in whicharmored chariots play a large part. Their use seems to haveentirely died out before the end of the Chou dynasty. He speaksas a man of Wu, a state which ceased to exist as early as 473B.C. On this I shall touch presently.
But once refer the work to the 5th century or earlier, andthe chances of its being other than a bona fide production aresensibly diminished. The great age of forgeries did not comeuntil long after. That it should have been forged in the periodimmediately following 473 is particularly unlikely, for no one,as a rule, hastens to identify himself with a lost cause. As forYeh Shui-hsin's theory, that the author was a literary recluse,that seems to me quite untenable. If one thing is more apparentthan another after reading the maxims of Sun Tzu, it is thattheir essence has been distilled from a large store of personalobservation and experience. They reflect the mind not only of aborn strategist, gifted with a rare faculty of generalization,but also of a practical soldier closely acquainted with themilitary conditions of his time. To say nothing of the fact thatthese sayings have been accepted and endorsed by all the greatestcaptains of Chinese history, they offer a combination offreshness and sincerity, acuteness and common sense, which quiteexcludes the idea that they were artificially concocted in thestudy. If we admit, then, that the 13 chapters were the genuineproduction of a military man living towards the end of the "CH`UNCH`IU" period, are we not bound, in spite of the silence of theTSO CHUAN, to accept Ssu-ma Ch`ien's account in its entirety? Inview of his high repute as a sober historian, must we nothesitate to assume that the records he drew upon for Sun Wu'sbiography were false and untrustworthy? The answer, I fear, mustbe in the negative. There is still one grave, if not fatal,objection to the chronology involved in the story as told in theSHIH CHI, which, so far as I am aware, nobody has yet pointedout. There are two passages in Sun Tzu in which he alludes tocontemporary 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 ofthe date of composition. They assign the work to the period ofthe struggle between Wu and Yueh. So much has been observed byPi I-hsun. But what has hitherto escaped notice is that theyalso seriously impair the credibility of Ssu-ma Ch`ien'snarrative. As we have seen above, the first positive date givenin connection with Sun Wu is 512 B.C. He is then spoken of as ageneral, acting as confidential adviser to Ho Lu, so that hisalleged introduction to that monarch had already taken place, andof course the 13 chapters must have been written earlier still.But at that time, and for several years after, down to thecapture of Ying in 506, Ch`u and not Yueh, was the greathereditary enemy of Wu. The two states, Ch`u and Wu, had beenconstantly at war for over half a century, [31] whereas the firstwar between Wu and Yueh was waged only in 510, [32] and even thenwas no more than a short interlude sandwiched in the midst of thefierce struggle with Ch`u. Now Ch`u is not mentioned in the 13chapters at all. The natural inference is that they were writtenat a time when Yueh had become the prime antagonist of Wu, thatis, after Ch`u had suffered the great humiliation of 506. Atthis 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 Ch`u invades Wu, but is signally defeated at Yu-chang.508 506 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 Kou Chien renders homage to Wu. Death of Wu Tzu-hsu.484 482 Kou Chien invades Wu in the absence of Fu Ch`ai.478 to Further attacks by Yueh on Wu.476 475 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 meas one that could have been written in the full flush of victory.It seems rather to imply that, for the moment at least, the tidehad turned against Wu, and that she was getting the worst of thestruggle. Hence we may conclude that our treatise was not inexistence in 505, before which date Yueh does not appear to havescored any notable success against Wu. Ho Lu died in 496, sothat if the book was written for him, it must have been duringthe period 505-496, when there was a lull in the hostilities, Wuhaving presumably exhausted by its supreme effort against Ch`u.On the other hand, if we choose to disregard the traditionconnecting Sun Wu's name with Ho Lu, it might equally well haveseen the light between 496 and 494, or possibly in the period482-473, when Yueh was once again becoming a very serious menace.[33] We may feel fairly certain that the author, whoever he mayhave been, was not a man of any great eminence in his own day.On this point the negative testimony of the TSO CHUAN faroutweighs 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 fromthe great commentary. It was Wu Tzu-hsu, he says, who got allthe credit of Sun Wu's exploits, because the latter (being analien) was not rewarded with an office in the State. How then did the Sun Tzu legend originate? It may be thatthe growing celebrity of the book imparted by degrees a kind offactitious renown to its author. It was felt to be only rightand proper that one so well versed in the science of war shouldhave solid achievements to his credit as well. Now the captureof Ying was undoubtedly the greatest feat of arms in Ho Lu'sreign; it made a deep and lasting impression on all thesurrounding states, and raised Wu to the short-lived zenith ofher power. Hence, what more natural, as time went on, than thatthe acknowledged master of strategy, Sun Wu, should be popularlyidentified with that campaign, at first perhaps only in the sensethat his brain conceived and planned it; afterwards, that it wasactually carried out by him in conjunction with Wu Yuan, [34] PoP`ei and Fu Kai? It is obvious that any attempt to reconstruct even theoutline of Sun Tzu's life must be based almost wholly onconjecture. With this necessary proviso, I should say that heprobably entered the service of Wu about the time of Ho Lu'saccession, and gathered experience, though only in the capacityof a subordinate officer, during the intense military activitywhich marked the first half of the prince's reign. [35] If herose to be a general at all, he certainly was never on an equalfooting with the three above mentioned. He was doubtless presentat the investment and occupation of Ying, and witnessed Wu'ssudden collapse in the following year. Yueh's attack at thiscritical juncture, when her rival was embarrassed on every side,seems to have convinced him that this upstart kingdom was thegreat enemy against whom every effort would henceforth have to bedirected. Sun Wu was thus a well-seasoned warrior when he satdown to write his famous book, which according to my reckoningmust have appeared towards the end, rather than the beginning ofHo Lu's reign. The story of the women may possibly have grownout of some real incident occurring about the same time. As wehear no more of Sun Wu after this from any source, he is hardlylikely to have survived his patron or to have taken part in thedeath-struggle with Yueh, which began with the disaster at Tsui-li. If these inferences are approximately correct, there is acertain irony in the fate which decreed that China's mostillustrious man of peace should be contemporary with her greatestwriter on war.
The Text of Sun Tzu-------------------
I have found it difficult to glean much about the history ofSun Tzu's text. The quotations that occur in early authors go toshow that the "13 chapters" of which Ssu-ma Ch`ien speaks wereessentially the same as those now extant. We have his word forit that they were widely circulated in his day, and can onlyregret 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 tosuppose that Ts`ao Kung tampered with the text. But the textitself is often so obscure, and the number of editions whichappeared from that time onward so great, especially during theT`ang and Sung dynasties, that it would be surprising if numerouscorruptions had not managed to creep in. Towards the middle ofthe Sung period, by which time all the chief commentaries on SunTzu were in existence, a certain Chi T`ien-pao published a workin 15 CHUAN entitled "Sun Tzu with the collected commentaries often writers." There was another text, with variant readings putforward by Chu Fu of Ta-hsing, which also had supporters amongthe scholars of that period; but in the Ming editions, Sun Hsing-yen tells us, these readings were for some reason or other nolonger put into circulation. Thus, until the end of the 18thcentury, the text in sole possession of the field was one derivedfrom Chi T`ien-pao's edition, although no actual copy of thatimportant work was known to have survived. That, therefore, isthe text of Sun Tzu which appears in the War section of the greatImperial encyclopedia printed in 1726, the KU CHIN T`U SHU CHICH`ENG. Another copy at my disposal of what is practically thesame 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 isevidently a similar version which has filtered through Japanesechannels. So things remained until Sun Hsing-yen [1752-1818], adistinguished antiquarian and classical scholar, who claimed tobe an actual descendant of Sun Wu, [36] accidentally discovered acopy of Chi T`ien-pao's long-lost work, when on a visit to thelibrary of the Hua-yin temple. [37] Appended to it was the ISHUO of Cheng Yu-Hsien, mentioned in the T`UNG CHIH, and alsobelieved to have perished. This is what Sun Hsing-yen designatesas the "original edition (or text)" -- a rather misleading name,for it cannot by any means claim to set before us the text of SunTzu in its pristine purity. Chi T`ien-pao was a carelesscompiler, and appears to have been content to reproduce thesomewhat debased version current in his day, without troubling tocollate it with the earliest editions then available.Fortunately, two versions of Sun Tzu, even older than the newlydiscovered work, were still extant, one buried in the T`UNG TIEN,Tu Yu's great treatise on the Constitution, the other similarlyenshrined in the T`AI P`ING YU LAN encyclopedia. In both thecomplete text is to be found, though split up into fragments,intermixed with other matter, and scattered piecemeal over anumber of different sections. Considering that the YU LAN takesus back to the year 983, and the T`UNG TIEN about 200 yearsfurther still, to the middle of the T`ang dynasty, the value ofthese early transcripts of Sun Tzu can hardly be overestimated.Yet the idea of utilizing them does not seem to have occurred toanyone until Sun Hsing-yen, acting under Government instructions,undertook a thorough recension of the text. This is his ownaccount: --
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 beenoccupied on the text of Sun Tzu prior to Sun Hsing-yen'scommission, but we are left in doubt as to the work they reallyaccomplished. At any rate, the new edition, when ultimatelyproduced, appeared in the names of Sun Hsing-yen and only one co-editor Wu Jen-shi. They took the "original edition" as theirbasis, and by careful comparison with older versions, as well asthe extant commentaries and other sources of information such asthe I SHUO, succeeded in restoring a very large number ofdoubtful passages, and turned out, on the whole, what must beaccepted as the closes approximation we are ever likely to get toSun Tzu's original work. This is what will hereafter bedenominated 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 earlyphilosophical works in 83 PEN. [38] It opens with a preface bySun Hsing-yen (largely quoted in this introduction), vindicatingthe traditional view of Sun Tzu's life and performances, andsumming up in remarkably concise fashion the evidence in itsfavor. This is followed by Ts`ao Kung's preface to his edition,and the biography of Sun Tzu from the SHIH CHI, both translatedabove. Then come, firstly, Cheng Yu-hsien's I SHUO, [39] withauthor's preface, and next, a short miscellany of historical andbibliographical information entitled SUN TZU HSU LU, compiled byPi I-hsun. As regards the body of the work, each separatesentence is followed by a note on the text, if required, and thenby the various commentaries appertaining to it, arranged inchronological order. These we shall now proceed to discussbriefly, one by one.
The Commentators----------------
Sun Tzu can boast an exceptionally long distinguished rollof commentators, which would do honor to any classic. Ou-yangHsiu remarks on this fact, though he wrote before the tale wascomplete, and rather ingeniously explains it by saying that theartifices of war, being inexhaustible, must therefore besusceptible 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 theearliest commentary on Sun Tzu actually came from the pen of thisextraordinary man, whose biography in the SAN KUO CHIH reads likea romance. One of the greatest military geniuses that the worldhas seen, and Napoleonic in the scale of his operations, he wasespecially famed for the marvelous rapidity of his marches, whichhas found expression in the line "Talk of Ts`ao Ts`ao, and Ts`aoTs`ao will appear." Ou-yang Hsiu says of him that he was a greatcaptain who "measured his strength against Tung Cho, Lu Pu andthe two Yuan, father and son, and vanquished them all; whereuponhe divided the Empire of Han with Wu and Shu, and made himselfking. It is recorded that whenever a council of war was held byWei on the eve of a far-reaching campaign, he had all hiscalculations ready; those generals who made use of them did notlose one battle in ten; those who ran counter to them in anyparticular saw their armies incontinently beaten and put toflight." Ts`ao Kung's notes on Sun Tzu, models of austerebrevity, are so thoroughly characteristic of the stern commanderknown to history, that it is hard indeed to conceive of them asthe work of a mere LITTERATEUR. Sometimes, indeed, owing toextreme compression, they are scarcely intelligible and stand noless in need of a commentary than the text itself. [40]
2. MENG SHIH. The commentary which has come down to usunder this name is comparatively meager, and nothing about theauthor 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 amistake. In Sun Hsing-yen's preface, he appears as Meng Shih ofthe Liang dynasty [502-557]. Others would identify him with MengK`ang of the 3rd century. He is named in one work as the last ofthe "Five Commentators," the others being Wei Wu Ti, Tu Mu, Ch`enHao and Chia Lin.
3. LI CH`UAN of the 8th century was a well-known writer onmilitary tactics. One of his works has been in constant use downto the present day. The T`UNG CHIH mentions "Lives of famousgenerals 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, hefollowed a variant of the text of Sun Tzu which differsconsiderably from those now extant. His notes are mostly shortand to the point, and he frequently illustrates his remarks byanecdotes from Chinese history.
4. TU YU (died 812) did not publish a separate commentaryon Sun Tzu, his notes being taken from the T`UNG TIEN, theencyclopedic 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 ancientcommentaries of Wang Ling and others. Owing to the peculiararrangement of T`UNG TIEN, he has to explain each passage on itsmerits, apart from the context, and sometimes his own explanationdoes not agree with that of Ts`ao Kung, whom he always quotesfirst. Though not strictly to be reckoned as one of the "TenCommentators," 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 -- abright star even in the glorious galaxy of the T`ang period. Welearn from Ch`ao Kung-wu that although he had no practicalexperience of war, he was extremely fond of discussing thesubject, and was moreover well read in the military history ofthe CH`UN CH`IU and CHAN KUO eras. His notes, therefore, arewell worth attention. They are very copious, and replete withhistorical parallels. The gist of Sun Tzu's work is thussummarized by him: "Practice benevolence and justice, but on theother hand make full use of artifice and measures of expediency."He further declared that all the military triumphs and disastersof the thousand years which had elapsed since Sun Tzu's deathwould, upon examination, be found to uphold and corroborate, inevery particular, the maxims contained in his book. Tu Mu'ssomewhat spiteful charge against Ts`ao Kung has already beenconsidered 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 commentaryon Sun Tzu because Ts`ao Kung's on the one hand was too obscureand subtle, and that of Tu Mu on the other too long-winded anddiffuse. Ou-yang Hsiu, writing in the middle of the 11thcentury, calls Ts`ao Kung, Tu Mu and Ch`en Hao the three chiefcommentators on Sun Tzu, and observes that Ch`en Hao iscontinually attacking Tu Mu's shortcomings. His commentary,though not lacking in merit, must rank below those of hispredecessors.
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 andwas afterwards republished by Chi Hsieh of the same dynastytogether with those of Meng Shih and Tu Yu. It is of somewhatscanty texture, and in point of quality, too, perhaps the leastvaluable 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. Hiscommentary was published with a laudatory preface by the greatOu-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 aminclined to endorse this favorable judgment, and would certainlyplace him above Ch`en Hao in order of merit.
9. WANG HSI, also of the Sung dynasty, is decidedlyoriginal in some of his interpretations, but much less judiciousthan Mei Yao-ch`en, and on the whole not a very trustworthyguide. He is fond of comparing his own commentary with that ofTs`ao Kung, but the comparison is not often flattering to him.We learn from Ch`ao Kung-wu that Wang Hsi revised the ancienttext of Sun Tzu, filling up lacunae and correcting mistakes. [45]
10. HO YEN-HSI of the Sung dynasty. The personal name ofthis commentator is given as above by Cheng Ch`iao in the TUNGCHIH, written about the middle of the twelfth century, but heappears simply as Ho Shih in the YU HAI, and Ma Tuan-lin quotesCh`ao Kung-wu as saying that his personal name is unknown. Thereseems to be no reason to doubt Cheng Ch`iao's statement,otherwise I should have been inclined to hazard a guess andidentify him with one Ho Ch`u-fei, the author of a short treatiseon war, who lived in the latter part of the 11th century. HoShih's commentary, in the words of the T`IEN-I-KO catalogue,"contains helpful additions" here and there, but is chieflyremarkable for the copious extracts taken, in adapted form, fromthe dynastic histories and other sources.
11. CHANG YU. The list closes with a commentator of nogreat originality perhaps, but gifted with admirable powers oflucid exposition. His commentator is based on that of Ts`aoKung, whose terse sentences he contrives to expand and develop inmasterly fashion. Without Chang Yu, it is safe to say that muchof Ts`ao Kung's commentary would have remained cloaked in itspristine obscurity and therefore valueless. His work is notmentioned in the Sung history, the T`UNG K`AO, or the YU HAI, butit finds a niche in the T`UNG CHIH, which also names him as theauthor of the "Lives of Famous Generals." [46] It is rather remarkable that the last-named four should allhave flourished within so short a space of time. Ch`ao Kung-wuaccounts for it by saying: "During the early years of the Sungdynasty the Empire enjoyed a long spell of peace, and men ceasedto practice the art of war. but when [Chao] Yuan-hao's rebellioncame [1038-42] and the frontier generals were defeated time aftertime, the Court made strenuous inquiry for men skilled in war,and military topics became the vogue amongst all the highofficials. Hence it is that the commentators of Sun Tzu in ourdynasty belong mainly to that period. [47]
Besides these eleven commentators, there are several otherswhose 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 SHUadds Sun Hao, and the T`UNG CHIH Hsiao Chi, while the T`U SHUmentions a Ming commentator, Huang Jun-yu. It is possible thatsome of these may have been merely collectors and editors ofother commentaries, like Chi T`ien-pao and Chi Hsieh, mentionedabove.
Appreciations of Sun Tzu------------------------
Sun Tzu has exercised a potent fascination over the minds ofsome of China's greatest men. Among the famous generals who areknown to have studied his pages with enthusiasm may be mentionedHan 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`aoKung, who disputes with Han Hsin the highest place in Chinesemilitary annals, has already been recorded. [53] Still moreremarkable, in one way, is the testimony of purely literary men,such as Su Hsun (the father of Su Tung-p`o), who wrote severalessays on military topics, all of which owe their chiefinspiration to Sun Tzu. The following short passage by him ispreserved 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 inthe 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 ofthe criticism, although he dislikes the audacious comparison withthe venerated classical works. Language of this sort, he says,"encourages a ruler's bent towards unrelenting warfare andreckless militarism."
Apologies for War-----------------
Accustomed as we are to think of China as the greatestpeace-loving nation on earth, we are in some danger of forgettingthat her experience of war in all its phases has also been suchas no modern State can parallel. Her long military annalsstretch back to a point at which they are lost in the mists oftime. She had built the Great Wall and was maintaining a hugestanding army along her frontier centuries before the first Romanlegionary was seen on the Danube. What with the perpetualcollisions of the ancient feudal States, the grim conflicts withHuns, Turks and other invaders after the centralization ofgovernment, the terrific upheavals which accompanied theoverthrow of so many dynasties, besides the countless rebellionsand minor disturbances that have flamed up and flickered outagain one by one, it is hardly too much to say that the clash ofarms has never ceased to resound in one portion or another of theEmpire. No less remarkable is the succession of illustrious captainsto whom China can point with pride. As in all countries, thegreatest are fond of emerging at the most fateful crises of herhistory. Thus, Po Ch`i stands out conspicuous in the period whenCh`in was entering upon her final struggle with the remainingindependent states. The stormy years which followed the break-upof the Ch`in dynasty are illuminated by the transcendent geniusof Han Hsin. When the House of Han in turn is tottering to itsfall, the great and baleful figure of Ts`ao Ts`ao dominates thescene. And in the establishment of the T`ang dynasty,one of themightiest tasks achieved by man, the superhuman energy of LiShih-min (afterwards the Emperor T`ai Tsung) was seconded by thebrilliant strategy of Li Ching. None of these generals need fearcomparison with the greatest names in the military history ofEurope. In spite of all this, the great body of Chinese sentiment,from Lao Tzu downwards, and especially as reflected in thestandard literature of Confucianism, has been consistentlypacific and intensely opposed to militarism in any form. It issuch an uncommon thing to find any of the literati defendingwarfare on principle, that I have thought it worth while tocollect and translate a few passages in which the unorthodox viewis upheld. The following, by Ssu-ma Ch`ien, shows that for allhis ardent admiration of Confucius, he was yet no advocate ofpeace 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 hiscommentary 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 highesteem. 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 similarstrain: --
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, afterSun Tzu. The notes on each have been drawn principally from theSSU 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. 381B.C.). A genuine work. See SHIH CHI, ch. 65.
2. SSU-MA FA, in 1 CHUAN or 5 chapters. Wrongly attributedto Ssu-ma Jang-chu of the 6th century B.C. Its date, however,must be early, as the customs of the three ancient dynasties areconstantly to be met within its pages. See SHIH CHI, ch. 64. The SSU K`U CH`UAN SHU (ch. 99, f. 1) remarks that theoldest three treatises on war, SUN TZU, WU TZU and SSU-MA FA,are, generally speaking, only concerned with things strictlymilitary -- the art of producing, collecting, training anddrilling troops, and the correct theory with regard to measuresof expediency, laying plans, transport of goods and the handlingof soldiers -- in strong contrast to later works, in which thescience of war is usually blended with metaphysics, divinationand magical arts in general.
3. LIU T`AO, in 6 CHUAN, or 60 chapters. Attributed to LuWang (or Lu Shang, also known as T`ai Kung) of the 12th centuryB.C. [74] But its style does not belong to the era of the ThreeDynasties. Lu Te-ming (550-625 A.D.) mentions the work, andenumerates the headings of the six sections so that the forgerycannot have been later than Sui dynasty.
4. WEI LIAO TZU, in 5 CHUAN. Attributed to Wei Liao (4thcent. B.C.), who studied under the famous Kuei-ku Tzu. The workappears to have been originally in 31 chapters, whereas the textwe possess contains only 24. Its matter is sound enough in themain, though the strategical devices differ considerably fromthose of the Warring States period. It is been furnished with acommentary by the well-known Sung philosopher Chang Tsai.
5. SAN LUEH, in 3 CHUAN. Attributed to Huang-shih Kung, alegendary personage who is said to have bestowed it on ChangLiang (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 Hanperiod. The Han Emperor Kuang Wu [25-57 A.D.] apparently quotesfrom it in one of his proclamations; but the passage in questionmay have been inserted later on, in order to prove thegenuineness of the work. We shall not be far out if we refer itto the Northern Sung period [420-478 A.D.], or somewhat earlier.
6. LI WEI KUNG WEN TUI, in 3 sections. Written in the formof a dialogue between T`ai Tsung and his great general Li Ching,it is usually ascribed to the latter. Competent authoritiesconsider it a forgery, though the author was evidently wellversed in the art of war.
7. LI CHING PING FA (not to be confounded with theforegoing) is a short treatise in 8 chapters, preserved in theT`ung Tien, but not published separately. This fact explains itsomission from the SSU K`U CH`UAN SHU.
8. WU CH`I CHING, in 1 CHUAN. Attributed to the legendaryminister Feng Hou, with exegetical notes by Kung-sun Hung of theHan dynasty (d. 121 B.C.), and said to have been eulogized by thecelebrated general Ma Lung (d. 300 A.D.). Yet the earliestmention of it is in the SUNG CHIH. Although a forgery, the workis well put together.
Considering the high popular estimation in which Chu-koLiang has always been held, it is not surprising to find morethan one work on war ascribed to his pen. Such are (1) the SHIHLIU TS`E (1 CHUAN), preserved in the YUNG LO TA TIEN; (2) CHIANGYUAN (1 CHUAN); and (3) HSIN SHU (1 CHUAN), which stealswholesale from Sun Tzu. None of these has the slightest claim tobe considered genuine. Most of the large Chinese encyclopedias contain extensivesections devoted to the literature of war. The followingreferences 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 worksalso 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 theImperial 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 year637.
8. Wang-tzu Ch`eng-fu, ch. 32, year 607.
9. The mistake is natural enough. Native critics refer to awork of the Han dynasty, which says: "Ten LI outside the WU gate[of the city of Wu, now Soochow in Kiangsu] there is a greatmound, 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 sharpenedwood to make arrows. The use of bows and arrows is to keep theEmpire in awe."
11. The son and successor of Ho Lu. He was finally defeated andoverthrown by Kou chien, King of Yueh, in 473 B.C. See post.
12. King Yen of Hsu, a fabulous being, of whom Sun Hsing-yensays in his preface: "His humanity brought him to destruction."
13. The passage I have put in brackets is omitted in the T`USHU, and may be an interpolation. It was known, however to ChangShou-chieh of the T`ang dynasty, and appears in the T`AI P`ING YULAN.
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 isnot in 6 chapters, has 48 assigned to it in the HAN CHIH.Likewise, the CHUNG YUNG is credited with 49 chapters, though nowonly in one only. In the case of very short works, one istempted 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 formof his name.
21. I.e. Po P`ei. See ante.
22. The nucleus of this work is probably genuine, though largeadditions have been made by later hands. Kuan chung died in 645B.C.
23. See infra, beginning of INTRODUCTION.
24. I do not know what this work, unless it be the last chapterof 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 thelatter half of the 6th century B.C., and is also believed to havewritten a work on war. See SHIH CHI, ch. 64, and infra at thebeginning of the INTRODUCTION.
29. See Legge's Classics, vol. V, Prolegomena p. 27. Leggethinks that the TSO CHUAN must have been written in the 5thcentury, 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 isalready at variance with its powerful neighbor. The CH`UN CH`IUfirst 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 feudwould tend to grow more bitter after each encounter, and thusmore fully justify the language used in XI. ss. 30.
34. With Wu Yuan himself the case is just the reverse: -- aspurious treatise on war has been fathered on him simply becausehe was a great general. Here we have an obvious inducement toforgery. Sun Wu, on the other hand, cannot have been widelyknown 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 arereally descended from Sun Tzu. I am ashamed to say that I onlyread my ancestor's work from a literary point of view, withoutcomprehending the military technique. So long have we beenenjoying the blessings of peace!"
37. Hoa-yin is about 14 miles from T`ung-kuan on the easternborder of Shensi. The temple in question is still visited bythose about the ascent of the Western Sacred Mountain. It ismentioned in a text as being "situated five LI east of thedistrict city of Hua-yin. The temple contains the Hua-shantablet 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: "Hiscommentary is frequently obscure; it furnishes a clue, but doesnot fully develop the meaning."
41. WEN HSIEN T`UNG K`AO, ch. 221.
42. It is interesting to note that M. Pelliot has recentlydiscovered chapters 1, 4 and 5 of this lost work in the "Grottosof 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-namedwas nominally existent in Sun Tzu's day, it retained hardly avestige of power, and the old military organization hadpractically gone by the board. I can suggest no otherexplanation 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 theSAN 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 ofacquainting themselves with Sun Tzu are not behindhand in theirpraise. In this connection, I may perhaps be excused for quotingfrom a letter from Lord Roberts, to whom the sheets of thepresent work were submitted previous to publication: "Many ofSun Wu's maxims are perfectly applicable to the present day, andno. 11 [in Chapter VIII] is one that the people of this countrywould 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 ofguests, and festive rites. See SHU CHING, ii. 1. III. 8, andCHOU LI, IX. fol. 49.
67. See XIII. ss. 11, note.
68. This is a rather obscure allusion to the TSO CHUAN, whereTzu-ch`an says: "If you have a piece of beautiful brocade, youwill 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 LUNYU, 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 willbe found in the SHIH CHI, ch. 32 ad init. Besides the traditionwhich makes him a former minister of Chou Hsin, two otheraccounts of him are there given, according to which he wouldappear to have been first raised from a humble private station byWen Wang.