Prev
| Next
| Contents
INTRODUCTION & 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.
|
EVENTS |
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." 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. 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.
- WU TZU, in 1 CHUAN or 6 chapters. By Wu Ch`i (d. 381 B.C.).
A genuine work. See SHIH CHI, ch. 65.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
- SHI CHI, ch. 65.
- He reigned from 514 to 496 B.C.
- SHI CHI, ch. 130.
- The appellation of Nang Wa.
- SHI CHI, ch. 31.
- SHI CHI, ch. 25.
- The appellation of Hu Yen, mentioned in ch. 39 under the year
637.
- Wang-tzu Ch`eng-fu, ch. 32, year 607.
- 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."
- "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."
- 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.
- King Yen of Hsu, a fabulous being, of whom Sun Hsing-yen says
in his preface: "His humanity brought him to destruction."
- 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.
- Ts`ao Kung seems to be thinking of the first part of chap. II,
perhaps especially of ss. 8.
- See chap. XI.
- 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."
- Yeh Shih of the Sung dynasty [1151-1223].
- He hardly deserves to be bracketed with assassins.
- See Chapter 7, ss. 27 and Chapter 11, ss. 28.
- See Chapter 11, ss. 28. Chuan Chu is the abbreviated form of
his name.
- I.e. Po P`ei. See ante.
- The nucleus of this work is probably genuine, though large
additions have been made by later hands. Kuan chung died in 645 B.C.
- See infra, beginning of INTRODUCTION.
- 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.
- About 480 B.C.
- That is, I suppose, the age of Wu Wang and Chou Kung.
- In the 3rd century B.C.
- 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.
- 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.
- See MENCIUS III. 1. iii. 13-20.
- 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.
- This is explicitly stated in the TSO CHUAN, XXXII, 2.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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."
- 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!"
- 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]."
- See my "Catalogue of Chinese Books" (Luzac & Co.,
1908), no.
- This is a discussion of 29 difficult passages in Sun Tzu.
- 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."
- WEN HSIEN T`UNG K`AO, ch. 221.
- 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.
- 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.
- See CHOU LI, xxix. 6-10.
- T`UNG K`AO, ch. 221.
- This appears to be still extant. See Wylie's "Notes,"
p. 91 (new edition).
- T`UNG K`AO, loc. cit.
- A notable person in his day. His biography is given in the SAN
KUO CHIH, ch. 10.
- See XI. ss. 58, note.
- HOU HAN SHU, ch. 17 ad init.
- SAN KUO CHIH, ch. 54.
- SUNG SHIH, ch. 365 ad init.
- 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."
- Ch. 140.
- See IV. ss. 3.
- The allusion may be to Mencius VI. 2. ix. 2.
- The TSO CHUAN.
- SHIH CHI, ch. 25, fol. I.
- Cf. SHIH CHI, ch 47.
- See SHU CHING, preface ss. 55.
- See SHIH CHI, ch. 47.
- Lun Yu, XV. 1.
- I failed to trace this utterance.
- Supra.
- Supra.
- 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.
- See XIII. ss. 11, note.
- 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."
- Cf. TAO TE CHING, ch. 31.
- Sun Hsing-yen might have quoted Confucius again. See LUN YU,
XIII. 29, 30.
- Better known as Hsiang Yu [233-202 B.C.].
- SHIH CHI, ch. 47.
- SHIH CHI, ch. 38.
- 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.
Prev
| Next
| Contents
|