The Art of War

[Kristin Galpin]

The Art of War
tr. by Lionel Giles
[1910]

If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.--p. 25, II:18.

Anger may in time change to gladness;
Vexation may be succeeded by content.
But a kingdom that has once been destroyed
Can never come again into being;
Nor can the dead ever be brought back to life.
Hence the enlightened ruler is heedful,
And the good general full of caution.
This is the way to keep a country at peace and an army intact.
   --p. 159, XII:20-22.

Attributed to the legendary Chinese general, Sun Tzu, the Art of War also has a strong spiritual component. The work blends Taoism with the art of statecraft, applying concepts such as 'doing without doing' to the battlefield. Traditionally written during the Spring and Autumn period (722-481 BCE), others date it, based on historical and internal evidence, to the Warring States Period (403-221 BCE). Sun Tzu is traditionally identified with an historical figure who lived from 544-496 BCE, a general of the King of Wu. Since it first came to the attention of Westerners in the 19th century, the Art of War has influenced leaders from Napoleon to Norman Schwarzkopf. Mao tse Tung attributed it as a source of his thinking on guerilla warfare. The work is considered a masterpiece of military theory.

Production notes: This is the classic Giles translation of the work, scanned from a reprint of the first edition. The Chinese text of the book is displayed using image files. Other Chinese text in the work is indicated by a hash sign (#). The Chinese concordance is omitted, but all of the rest of the book is presented intact. John Bruno Hare, October 12, 2008.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/tao/aow/index.htm

[Kristin Galpin]

SUN TZŬ
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 & MSS. in the British Museum.
London: Luzac and Co.
[1910]
Scanned, proofed and formatted by John Bruno Hare at sacred-texts.com, August 2008. This text is in the public domain because it was published prior to 1923.

To my brother
Captain Valentine Giles, R.C.
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.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Kristin Galpin]

CONTENTS
 
 Page
 
PREFACE
 vii
 
INTRODUCTION
 
 
    Sun Wu and his Book
 xi
 
    The Text of Sun Tzŭ
 xxx
 
    The Commentators
 xxxiv
 
    Appreciations of Sun Tzŭ
 xlii
 
    Apologies for war
 xliii
 
    Bibliography
 l
 
Chap. I. Laying Plans
 1
 
Chap. II. Waging War
 9
 
Chap. III. Attack by Stratagem
 17
 
Chap. IV. Tactical Dispositions
 26
 
Chap. V. Energy
 33
 
Chap. VI. Weak Points and Strong
 42
 
Chap. VII. Manœuvring
 55
 
Chap. VIII. Variation of Tactics
 71
 
Chap. IX. The Army on the March
 80
 
Chap. X. Terrain
 100
 
Chap. XI. The Nine Situations
 114
 
Chap. XII. The Attack by Fire
 150
 
Chap. XIII. The Use of Spies
 160
 
CHINESE CONCORDANCE
 176
 
INDEX
 192
 



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Kristin Galpin]

p. vi p. vii

PREFACE
The seventh volume of "Memoires concernant l’histoire, les sciences, les arts, les mœurs, les usages, &c., des Chinois" 1 is devoted to the Art of War, and contains, amongst other treatises, "Les Treize Articles de Sun-tse," translated from the Chinese by a Jesuit Father, Joseph Amiot. Père Amiot appears to have enjoyed no small reputation as a sinologue in his day, and the field of his labours was certainly extensive. But his so-called translation of Sun Tzŭ, if placed side by side with the original, is seen at once to be little better than an imposture. It contains a great deal that Sun Tzŭ did not write, and very little indeed of what he did. Here is a fair specimen, taken from the opening sentences of chapter 5:—


De l’habileté dans le gouvernement des Troupes. Sun-tse dit: Ayez les noms de tous les Officiers tant généraux que subalternes; inscrivez-les dans un catalogue à part, avec la note des talents & de la capacité de chacun d’eux, afin de pouvoir les employer avec avantage lorsque l’occasion en sera venue. Faites en sorte que tous ceux que vous devez commander soient persuadés que votre principale attention est de les préserver de tout dommage. Les troupes que vous ferez avancer contre l’ennemi doivent être comme des pierres que vous lanceriez contre des œufs. De vous à l’ennemi il ne doit y avoir d’autre différence que celle du fort au foible, du vuide au plein. Attaquez à découvert, mais soyez vainqueur en secret. Voilà en peu de mots en quoi consiste l’habileté & toute la perfection même du gouvernement des troupes.

Throughout the nineteenth century, which saw a wonderful development in the study of Chinese literature, no translator ventured to tackle Sun Tzŭ, although his work was known to be highly valued in China as by far the


p. viii

oldest and best compendium of military science. It was not until the year 1905 that the first English translation, by Capt. E. F. Calthrop, R.F.A., appeared at Tokyo under the title "Sonshi" (the Japanese form of Sun Tzŭ). 1 Unfortunately, it was evident that the translator's knowledge of Chinese was far too scanty to fit him to grapple with the manifold difficulties of Sun Tzŭ. He himself plainly acknowledges that without the aid of two Japanese gentlemen "the accompanying translation would have been impossible." We can only wonder, then, that with their help it should have been so excessively bad. It is not merely a question of downright blunders, from which none can hope to be wholly exempt. Omissions were frequent; hard passages were wilfully distorted or slurred over. Such offences are less pardonable. They would not be tolerated in any edition of a Greek or Latin classic, and a similar standard of honesty ought to be insisted upon in translations from Chinese.

From blemishes of this nature, at least, I believe that the present translation is free. It was not undertaken out of any inflated estimate of my own powers; but I could not help feeling that Sun Tzŭ deserved a better fate than had befallen him, and I knew that, at any rate, I could hardly fail to improve on the work of my predecessors. Towards the end of 1908, a new and revised edition of Capt. Calthrop's translation was published in London, this time however, without any allusion to his Japanese collaborators. My first three chapters were then already in the printer's hands, so that the criticisms of Capt. Calthrop therein contained must be understood as referring to his earlier edition. In the subsequent chapters I have of course transferred my attention to the second edition. This is on the whole an improvement on the other, though there still remains much that cannot pass


p. ix

muster. Some of the grosser blunders have been rectified and lacunae filled up, but on the other hand a certain number of new mistakes appear. The very first sentence of the introduction is startlingly inaccurate; and later on, while mention is made of "an army of Japanese commentators" on Sun Tzŭ (who are these, by the way?), not a word is vouchsafed about the Chinese commentators, who nevertheless, I venture to assert, form a much more numerous and infinitely more important "army."

A few special features of the present volume may now be noticed. In the first place, the text has been cut up into numbered paragraphs, both in order to facilitate cross-reference and for the convenience of students generally. The division follows broadly that of Sun Hsing-yen's edition; but I have sometimes found it desirable to join two or more of his paragraphs into one. In quoting from other works, Chinese writers seldom give more than the bare title by way of reference, and the task of research is apt to be seriously hampered in consequence. With a view to obviating this difficulty so far as Sun Tzŭ is concerned, I have also appended a complete concordance of Chinese characters, following in this the admirable example of Legge, though an alphabetical arrangement has been preferred to the distribution under radicals which he adopted. Another feature borrowed from "The Chinese Classics" is the printing of text, translation and notes on the same page; the notes, however, are inserted, according to the Chinese method, immediately after the passages to which they refer. From the mass of native commentary my aim has been to extract the cream only, adding the Chinese text here and there when it seemed to present points of literary interest. Though constituting in itself an important branch of Chinese literature, very little commentary of this kind has hitherto been made directly accessible by translation. 1



I may say in conclusion that, owing to the printing off of my sheets as they were completed, the work has not had the benefit of a final revision. On a review of the whole, without modifying the substance of my criticisms, I might have been inclined in a few instances to temper their asperity. Having chosen to wield a bludgeon, however, I shall not cry out if in return I am visited with more than a rap over the knuckles. Indeed, I have been at some pains to put a sword into the hands of future opponents by scrupulously giving either text or reference for every passage translated. A scathing review, even from the pen of the Shanghai critic who despises "mere translations," would not, I must confess, be altogether unwelcome. For, after all, the worst fate I shall have to dread is that which befel the ingenious paradoxes of George in The Vicar of Wakefield.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Footnotes
vii:1 Published at Paris in 1782.

viii:1 A rather distressing Japanese flavour pervades the work throughout. Thus, King Ho Lu masquerades as "Katsuryo," Wu and Yüeh become "Go" and "Etsu," etc. etc.

ix:1 A notable exception is to be found in Biot's edition of the Chou Li.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Kristin Galpin]

p. xi

INTRODUCTION
Sun Wu and his Book.
Ssŭ-ma Ch‘ien gives the following biography of Sun Tzŭ: 1—


# Sun Tzŭ 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 Tzŭ 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 Tzŭ divided them into two companies, and placed one of the King's favourite 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 Tzŭ 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 the 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 Tzŭ 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 Tzŭ said: If words of command are not clear and distinct, if orders are not thoroughly understood, the general is co 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



p. xii


scene from the top of a raised pavilion; and when he saw that his favourite 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 savour. It is our wish that they shall not be beheaded.—Sun Tzŭ replied: Having once received His Majesty's commission to be 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 Tzŭ 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 Tzŭ said. The King is only fond of words, and cannot translate them into deeds.—After that, Ho Lu saw that Sun Tzŭ 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 Tzŭ shared in the might of the King.

About Sun Tzŭ himself this is all that Ssŭ-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 Tzŭ, and in his preface we read: # "Sun Tzŭ had his feet cut off and yet continued to discuss the art of war." 1 It seems likely, then, that "Pin" was a nickname bestowed on him after his mutilation, unless indeed 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 Chüan, will be found briefly related on p. 40.


p. xiii

To return to the elder Sun Tzŭ. 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 # Tzŭ-hsü [i.e. # Wu Yüan] 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. 1 It is not yet possible. We must wait"… 2 [After further successful fighting,] "in the ninth year [506 B.C.], King Ho Lu of Wu addressed Wu Tzŭ-hsü 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, # Tzŭ-ch‘ang, 3 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 Tang and Ts‘ai, and then you may succeed." Ho Lu followed this advice, [beat Ch‘u in five pitched battles and marched into Ying]. 4

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 the chapter entitled # (the earlier portion of which M. Chavannes believes to be a fragment of a treatise on Military Weapons), there occurs this passage: 5


From this time onward, a number of famous soldiers arose, one after the other: # Kao-fan, 6 who was employed by the Chin State; Wang-tzŭ, 7 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 (#).








p. xiv

It is obvious that Ssŭ-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 Yüeh 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 Tzŭ will be found, for what it is worth, in chapter 2. The only new points in it worth noting are: 1) Sun Tzŭ was first recommended to Ho Lu by Wu Tzŭ-hsü. 2) He is called a native of Wu. 1 3) He had previously lived a retired life, and his contemporaries were unaware of his ability. 2

The following passage occurs in # Huai-nan Tzŭ: "When sovereign and ministers show perversity of mind, it is impossible even for a Sun Tzŭ to encounter the foe." 3 Assuming that this work is genuine (and hitherto no doubt has been cast upon it), we have here the earliest direct reference, to Sun Tzŭ, for Huai-nan Tzŭ died in 122 B.C., many years before the Shih Chi was given to the world.

# Liu Hsiang (B.C. 80–9) in his # says: "The reason why Sun Wu at the head of 30,000 men beat




p. xv

[paragraph continues] Ch‘u with 200,000 is that the latter were undisciplined." 1

# Têng Ming-shih in his # (completed in 1134) informs us that the surname was bestowed on Sun Wu's grandfather by # Duke Ching of Ch‘i [547–490 B.C.]. Sun Wu's father Sun # Ping, rose to be a Minister of State in Chi, 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, 2 which, considering that Sun Pin's victory over in Wei was gained in 341 B.C., may be dismissed as chronologically impossible. Whence these data were obtained by Têng 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 Tzŭ. I shall give it in full:—


I have heard that the ancients used bows and arrows to their advantage. 3 The Lun Yü says: "There must be a sufficiency of military strength." 4 The Shu Ching mention "the army" among the "eight objects of government." 5 The I Ching says: "# 'army' indicates firmness and justice; the experienced leader will have good fortune." 6







p. xvi

[paragraph continues]

The Shih Ching says: "The King rose majestic in his wrath, and he marshalled his troops" 1 The Yellow Emperor, Tang the Completer and Wu Wang all used spears and battle-axes in order to succour their generation. The Ssŭ-ma Fa says: "If one man slay another of set purpose, he himself may rightfully be slain." 2 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 3 on the one hand and Yen Wang 4 on the other. 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. 5

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 Tzŭ was a native of the Ch‘i state, his personal name was Wu. He wrote the Art of War in 13 chapters for Ho Lü, 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]. 6 In his treatment of deliberation and planning, the importance of rapidity in taking the field, 7 clearness of conception, and depth of design, Sun









p. xvii

[paragraph continues]

Tzŭ 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.  1

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. § 15, in which it seems clear that some ruler is addressed.

In the bibliographical section of the Han Shu, 2 there is an entry which has given rise to much discussion: # "The works of Sun Tzŭ of Wu in 82 p‘ien (or chapters), with diagrams in 9 chüan." It is evident that this cannot be merely the 13 chapters known to Ssŭ-ma Ch‘ien, or those we possess to-day. Chang Shou-chieh in his # refers to an edition of Sun Tzŭ's # of which the "13 chapters" formed the first chüan, adding that there were two other chüan besides. 3 This has brought forth a theory, that the bulk of these 82 chapters consisted of other writings of Sun Tzŭ—we should call them apocryphal—similar to the # Wên Ta, of which a specimen dealing with the Nine Situations 4 is preserved in the # T‘ung Tien, and another in Ho Shih's commentary. It is suggested





p. xviii

that before his interview with Ho Lu, Sun Tzŭ 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-hsün, author of the # Sun Tzŭ Hsü Lu, backs this up with a quotation from the Wu Yüeh Ch‘un Ch‘iu: "The King of Wu summoned Sun Tzŭ, 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." 1 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. 2 Then the numerous other treatises attributed to Sun Tzŭ 3 might also be included. The fact that the Han Chih mentions no work of Sun Tzŭ 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-hsün 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 Yüeh Ch‘un Ch‘iu, or admitting the genuineness of any of the treatises cited by Pi I-hsün, we may see in this theory a probable solution of the mystery. Between Ssŭ-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 Tzŭ, and the 82 p‘ien may very well represent a collected edition of these lumped together with the original work.




p. xix

[paragraph continues] 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. 1

Tu Mu, after Ts‘ao Kung the most important commentator on Sun Tzŭ, composed the preface to his edition 2 about the middle of the ninth century. After a somewhat lengthy defence of the military art, 3 he comes at last to Sun Tzŭ himself, and makes one or two very startling assertions:—"The writings of Sun Wu," he says, "originally comprised several hundred thousand words, but Ts‘ao Ts‘ao, the Emperor Wu Wei, pruned away all redundancies and wrote out the essence of the whole, so as to form a single book in 13 chapters." 4 He goes on to remark that Ts‘ao Ts‘ao's commentary on Sun Tzŭ leaves a certain proportion of difficulties unexplained. This, in Tu Mu's opinion, does not necessarily imply that he was unable to furnish a complete commentary. 5 According to the Wei Chih, Ts‘ao himself wrote a book on war in something over 100,000 words, known as the # . It appears to have been of such exceptional merit that he suspects Ts‘ao to have used for it the surplus material which he had found in Sun Tzŭ. He concludes, however, by saying: "The Hsin Shu is now lost, so that the truth cannot be known for certain." 6

Tu Mu's conjecture seems to be based on a passage







p. xx

in the # "Wei Wu Ti strung together Sun Wu's Art of War," 1 which in turn may have resulted from a misunderstanding of the final words of Ts‘ao Kung's preface: #. This, as Sun Hsing-yen points out, 2 is only a modest way of saying that he made an explanatory paraphrase, 3 or in other words, wrote a commentary on it. On the whole, the theory has met with very little acceptance. Thus, the # says: 4 "The mention of the 13 chapters in the Shih Chi shows that they were in existence before the Han Chih, and that later accretions are not to be considered part of the original work. Tu Mu's assertion can certainly not be taken as proof." 5

There is every reason to suppose, then, that the 13 chapters existed in the time of Ssŭ-ma Ch‘ien practically as we have them now. That the work was then well known he tells us in so many words: "Sun Tzŭ'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 then are widely distributed, so I will not discuss them here." 6 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 great contemporary record, makes no mention whatever of Sun







p. xxi

[paragraph continues] 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 sceptical 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 disquisition by # Yeh Shui-hsin: 1—


It is stated in Ssŭ-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 Lü 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, 2 Ts‘ao Kuei, 3 Chu Chih-wu 4 and Chuan Shê-chu. 5 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 Yüan and the Minister Pei. 6 is it credible that Sun Wu alone should have been passed over? 7

In point of literary style, Sun Tzŭ's work belongs to the same school as Kuan Tzŭ, 8 the Liu T‘ao, 9 and the Yüeh Yü, 10 and may have












p. xxii


been the production of some private scholar living towards the end of the "Spring and Autumn" or the beginning of the "Warring States" period. 1 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. 2

From the flourishing period of the Chou dynasty 3 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" 4 that this custom changed. Now although Wu was an uncivilised State, is it 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-chü 5 and Sun Wu, is not authentic matter, but the reckless fabrication of theorising pundits. The story of Ho Lü's experiment on the women, in particular, is utterly preposterous and incredible. 6

[Kristin Galpin]

Yeh Shui-hsin represents Ssŭ-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; but the actual subject of the verbs #, #, # and # is certainly #, as is shown by the next words: #. 7 The fact may or may not be significant; but it is nowhere explicitly stated in the Shih Chi either that Sun Tzŭ was general on the occasion of








p. xxiii

the taking of Ying, or that he even went there at all. Moreover, as we know that Wu Yüan 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‘ên Chên-sun of the Sung dynasty has the note: 1—


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 Lü King of Wu, makes it uncertain what period he really belonged to. 2

He also says:—


The works of Sun Wu and Wu Ch‘i may be of genuine antiquity.  3

It is noticeable that both Yeh Shui-hsin and Ch‘ên Chên-sun, while rejecting the personality of Sun Wu as he figures in Ssŭ-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 Hsü Lu fails to appreciate this distinction, and consequently his bitter attack on Ch‘ên Chên-sun really misses its mark. He makes one or two points, however, which certainly tell in favour of the high antiquity of our "13 chapters." "Sun Tzŭ," he says, "must have lived in the age of Ching Wang [519–476], because he is frequently plagiarised in subsequent works of the Chou, Ch‘in and Han dynasties." 4





p. xxiv

[paragraph continues] The two most shameless offenders in this respect are Wu Ch‘i and Huai-nan Tzŭ, both of them important historical personages in their day. The former lived only a century after the alleged date of Sun Tzŭ, and his death is known to have taken place in 381 B.C. It was to him, according to Liu Hsiang, that # Tsêng Shên delivered the Tso Chuan, which had been entrusted to him by its author. 1 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 probability that there was some common source anterior to them all,—in other words, that Sun Tzŭ's treatise was already in existence towards the end of the 5th century B.C. Further proof of Sun Tzŭ'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 Hsü Lu; and though some of the interpretations are doubtful, the main argument is hardly affected thereby. 2 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



p. xxv

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. § 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. 1 The only warfare Sun Tzŭ knows is that carried on between the various feudal princes (#), in which armoured 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 bonâ 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, 2 that seems to me quite untenable. If one thing is more apparent than another after reading the maxims of Sun Tzŭ, 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 generalisation, but also of a practical soldier closely acquainted with the military conditions of his time. To say nothing



p. xxvi

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 Ssŭ-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 Tzŭ in which he alludes to contemporary affairs. The first is in VI. § 21:—


Though according to my estimate the soldiers of Yüeh 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. § 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 Yüeh 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 Yüeh. So much has been observed by Pi I-hsün. But what has hitherto escaped notice is that they also seriously impair the credibility of Ssŭ-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,

p. xxvii

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 Yüeh, was the great hereditary enemy of Wu. The two states, Ch‘u and Wu, had been constantly at war for over half a century, 1 whereas the first war between Wu and Yüeh was waged only in 510, 2 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 Yüeh had become the prime antagonist of Wu, that is, after Ch‘u had suffered the great humiliation of 506. At this point, a table of dates may be found useful.



B.C.
 
 
514
 Accession of Ho Lu.
 
512
 Ho Lu attacks Ch‘u, but is dissuaded from entering # Ying, the capital. Shih Chi mentions Sun Wu as general.
 
511
 Another attack on Ch‘u.
 
510
 Wu makes a successful attack on Yüeh. This is the first war between the two states.
 
509
or
508
 Ch‘u invades Wu, but is signally defeated at # Yü-chang.
 
506
 Ho Lu attacks Ch‘u with the aid of T‘ang and Ts‘ai. Decisive battle of # Po-chü, and capture of Ying. Last mention of Sun Wu in Shih Chi.
 
505
 Yüeh makes a raid on Wu in the absence of its army. Wu is beaten by Chin and evacuates Ying.
 
504
 Ho Lu sends # Fu Ch‘ai to attack Ch‘u.
 
497
 # Kou Chien becomes King of Yüeh.
 
496
 Wu attacks Yüeh, but is defeated by Kou Chien at # Tsui-li. Ho Lu is killed.
 
 
 p. xxviii
 
B.C.
 
 
494
 Fu Ch‘ai defeats Kou Chien in the great battle of # Fu-chiao, and enters the capital of Yüeh.
 
485 or 484
 Kou Chien renders homage to Wu. Death of Wu Tzŭ-hsü.
 
482
 Kou Chien invades Wu in the absence of Fu Ch‘ai.
 
478–476
 Further attacks by Yüeh 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. § 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 Yüeh 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 been 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 Yüeh was once again becoming a very serious menace. 1 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


p. xxix

the great commentary. It was Wu Tzŭ-hsü, 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. 1

How then did the Sun Tzŭ 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 Yüan, 2 Po P‘ei and Fu Kai?

It is obvious that any attempt to reconstruct even the outline of Sun Tzŭ'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 that prince's reign. 3 If he rose to be a general at all, he certainly was never on an equal footing with the three




p. xxx

above mentioned. He was doubtless present at the investment and occupation of Ying, and witnessed Wu's sudden collapse in the following year. Yüeh'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 Yüeh, 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.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Footnotes
xi:1 Shih Chi, ch. 65.

xi:2 Also written # Ho Lü. He reigned from 514 to 496 B.C.

xii:1 Shih Chi, ch. 130, f. 6 r°.

xiii:1 I note that M. Chavannes translates # "le peuple est épuisé." But in Sun Tzŭ's own book (see especially VII §§ 24–26) the ordinary meaning of # is "army," and this, I think, is more suitable here.

xiii:2 These words are given also in Wu Tzŭ-hsü's biography, ch. 66, fol. 3 r°.

xiii:3 The appellation of # Nang Wa.

xiii:4 Shih Chi, ch. 31, fol. 6 r°.

xiii:5 Ibid. ch. 25, fol. I r°.

xiii:6 The appellation of # Ho Yen, mentioned in ch. 39 under the year 637

xiii:7 # Wang-tzŭ Ch‘êng-fu, ch. 32, year 607.

xiv:1 The mistake is natural enough. Native critics refer to the #, a work of the Han dynasty, which says (ch. 2, fol. 3 v° of my edition): # "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."

xiv:2 #.

xiv:3 #.

xv:1 #.

xv:2 The Shih Chi, on the other hand, says: #. I may remark in passing that the name # for one who was a great warrior is just as suspicious as # for a man who had his feet cut off.

xv:3 An allusion to #, II. 2: # "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."

xv:4 # XII. 7.

xv:5 # V. iv. 7.

xv:6 #, 7th diagram (#).

xvi:1 #.

xvi:2 # ch. 1 (#) ad init. The text of the passage in the # T‘u Shu (#, ch. 85) is: #.

xvi:3 The son and successor of Ho Lu.. He was finally defeated and overthrown by # Kou Chien, King of Yüeh, in 473 B.C. See post.

xvi:4 King Yen of # Hsü, a fabulous being, of whom Sun Hsing-yen says in his preface: # "His humanity brought him to destruction." See Shih Chi, ch. 5, f. 1 v°, and M. Chavannes’ note, Mémoires Historiques, tom. II, p. 8.

xvi:5 T‘u Shu, ibid. ch. 90: #.

xvi:6 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 Yü Lan.

xvi:7 Ts‘ao Kung seems to be thinking of the first part of chap. II, perhaps especially of § 8.

xvii:1 #.

xvii:2 #.

xvii:3 The # mentions two editions of Sun Tzŭ in 3 chüan, namely # and #.

xvii:4 See chap. XI.

xviii:1 #.

xviii:2 #.

xviii:3 Such as the #, quoted in # Chêng Hsüan's commentary on the Chou Li, the # and #, mentioned in the # Sui Chih, and the #, in the Hsin T‘ang Chih.

xix:1 On the other hand, it is noteworthy that # Wu Tzŭ, which is now in 6 chapters, has 48 assigned to it in the Han Chih. Likewise, the Chung Yung is credited with 49 chapters, though now in one only. in the case of such very short works, one is tempted to think that # might simply mean "leaves."

xix:2 See T‘u Shu, ch. 442, #.

xix:3 An extract will be found on p. xlv.

xix:4 #.

xix:5 #.

xix:6 # p. xx #.

xx:1 #.

xx:2 See #.

xx:3 #.

xx:4 Ch. 99, fol. 5 r°.

xx:5 #.

xx:6 Shih Chi, ch. 65 ad fin: #.

xxi:1 # Yeh Shih of the Sung dynasty [1151–1223]. See # ch. 221, ff. 7, 8.

xxi:2 See Tso Chuan, #, I. 3 ad fin. and XI. 3 ad init. He hardly deserves to be bracketed with assassins.

xxi:3 See pp. 66, 128.

xxi:4 See Tso Chuan, #, XXX. 5.

xxi:5 See p. 128. Chuan Chu is the abbreviated form of his name.

xxi:6 I.e. Po P‘ei. See ante.

xxi:7 #.

xxi:8 The nucleus of this work is probably genuine, though large additions have been made by later hands. Kuan Chung died in 645 B.C.

xxi:9 See infra, p. l.

xxi:10 I do not know what work this is, unless it be the last chapter of the #. Why that chapter should be singled out, however, is not clear.

xxii:1 About 480 B.C.

xxii:2 #.

xxii:3 That is, I suppose, the age of Wu Wang and Chou Kong.

xxii:4 In the 3rd century B.C.

xxii:5 Ssŭ-ma Jang-chü, 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, p. l.

xxii:6 #.

xxii:7 See the end of the passage quoted from the Shih Chi on p. xii.

xxiii:1 In the #, a classified catalogue of his family library.

xxiii:2 See Wên Hsien T‘ung K‘ao, ch. 221, f. 9 r°: #.

xxiii:3 See Hsü Lu, f. 14 r°: #.

xxiii:4 # Here is a list of the passages in Sun Tzŭ from which p. xxiveither the substance or the actual words have been appropriated by early authors: VII. 9; IX. 17; I. 24 (#). IX. 23; IX. I, 3, 7; V. 1; III. 18; XI. 58; VII. 31; VII. 24; VII. 26; IX. 15; IX. 4 (bis) (#). III. 8; IV. 7 (#) VII. 19; V. 14; III 2 (#). III. 8; XI. 2; I. 19; XI. 58; X. 10 & VI. 1 (#. Two of the above are given as quotations). V. 13; IV. 2 (#). IX. 11, 12; XI. 30; I. 13; VII. 19 & IV. 7; VII. 32; VII. 25; IV. 20 & V. IX. 43; V. 15; VII. 26; V. 4 & XI. 39; VIII. 11; VI. 4 (#). V. 4 (#). II. 20; X. 14 (#).

xxiv:1 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.

xxiv:2 The instances quoted are:—III. 14, 15: # is said to be equivalent to #; II. 15: # = #; VII. 28: # = #; XI. 60: # =#; XI. 24: the use of # instead of # (the later form); XI. 64: # = #; IX. 3: # = #; III. 11: # and # antithetically opposed in the sense of # and #; XI. 56: # = #; XI. 31: #= #.

xxv:1 See Mencius III. 1. iii. 13–20.

xxv:2 # need not be pressed to mean an actual dweller in the mountains. I think it simply denotes a person living a retired life and standing aloof from public affairs.

xxvii:1 When Wu first appears in the Ch‘un Ch‘iu in 584, it is already at variance with its powerful neighbour. The Ch‘un Ch‘iu first mentions Yüeh in 539, the Tso Chuan in 601.

xxvii:2 This is explicitly stated in the Tso Chuan, #.

xxviii:1 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, § 30.

xxix:1 See his preface to Sun Tzŭ: #.

xxix:2 With Wu Yüan 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.

xxix:3 See Tso Chuan, #, 4th year (506), § 14 #: "From the date of King Chao's accession [515] there was no year in which Ch‘u was not attacked by Wu."



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.sacred-texts.com/tao/aow/aow03.htm

[Kristin Galpin]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The Text of Sun Tzŭ.
I have found it difficult to glean much about the history of Sun Tzŭ's text. The quotations that occur in early authors go to show that the "13 chapters" of which Ssŭ-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. 1 Sun Hsing-yen says in his preface:—


During the Ch‘in and Han dynasties Sun Tzŭ'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


p. xxxi


the benefit of posterity. Thus it came about that Wei Wu was the first to write a commentary on it. 1

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 Tang 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 Tzŭ were in existence, a certain # Chi T‘ien-pao published a work in 15 chüan entitled # "Sun Tzŭ with the collected commentaries of ten writers." 2 There was another text, with variant readings put forward by Chu Fu of # Ta-hsing, 3 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. 4 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 Tzŭ which appears in the War section of the great Imperial encyclopaedia printed in 1726, the # Ku Chin T‘u Shu Chi Ch‘êng. 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"





p. xxxii

[paragraph continues] [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, 1 who claimed to be an actual descendant of Sun Wu, 2 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. 3 Appended to it was the # I Shuo of # Chêng Yu-hsien, mentioned in the T‘ung Chih, and also believed to have perished. 4 This is what Sun Hsing-yen designates as the # or # "original edition (or text)"—a rather misleading name, for it cannot by any means claim to set before us the text of Sun Tzŭ in its pristine purity. Chi T‘ien-pao was a careless compiler, 5 and appears to have been content to reproduce the somewhat debased version current in his day, without troubling to collate it






p. xxxiii

with the earliest editions then available. Fortunately, two versions of Sun Tzŭ, 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 Ping Yü Lan encyclopaedia. 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 Yü 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 Tzŭ can hardly be overestimated. Yet the idea of utilising 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 Tzŭ 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 text-book for military men. 1

The three individuals here referred to had evidently been occupied on the text of Sun Tzŭ 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 Jên-chi. They took the "original text" as their basis, and by careful comparison with the older versions, as well as the extant commentaries and other sources of information such as


p. xxxiv

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 closest approximation we are ever likely to get to Sun Tzŭ's original work. This is what will hereafter be denominated the "standard text."

The copy which I have used belongs to a re-issue dated 1877. It is in 6 pên, forming part of a well-printed set of 23 early philosophical works in 83 pên. 1 It opens with a preface by Sun Hsing-yen (largely quoted in this introduction), vindicating the traditional view of Sun Tzŭ's life and performances, and summing up in remarkably concise fashion the evidence in its favour. This is followed by Ts‘ao Kung's preface to his edition, and the biography of Sun Tzŭ from the Shih Chi, both translated above. Then come, firstly, Chêng Yu-hsien's I Shuo, 2 with author's preface, and next, a short miscellany of historical and bibliographical information entitled # Sun Tzŭ Hsü Lu, compiled by # Pi I-hsün. 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.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Footnotes
xxx:1 See supra, p. xx.

xxxi:1 #.

xxxi:2 See #.

xxxi:3 Alluded to on p. xvii, note 3.

xxxi:4 Loc. cit.: #.

xxxii:1 A good biographical notice, with a list of his works, will be found in the #, ch. 48, fol. 18 sqq.

xxxii:2 Preface ad fin.: # "My family comes from Lo-an, and we are really descended from Sun Tzŭ. 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!"

xxxii:3 Hua-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 to make the ascent of the # or Western Sacred Mountain. It is mentioned in the # [A.D. 1461], ch. 32, f. 22, as the # "Situated five li east of the district city of Hua-yin. The temple contains the Hua-shan tablet inscribed by the T‘ang Emperor Hsüan Tsung [713–755]."

xxxii:4 #.

xxxii:5 Cf. Sun Hsing-yen's remark à propos of his mistakes in the names and order of the commentators: #.

xxxiii:1 #.

xxxiv:1 See my "Catalogue of Chinese Books" (Luzac & Co., 1908), no. 40.

xxxiv:2 This is a discussion of 29 difficult passages in Sun Tzŭ, namely: I. 2; 26; 16; II. 9 & 10; III. 3; III & VII; III. 17; IV. 4; 6; V. 3; 10 & 11; 14; the headings of the 13 chapters, with special reference to chap. VII; VII. 5; 15 & 16; 27; 33, &c.; VIII. 1–6; IX. II; X. 1–20; XI. 23; 31; 19;.43; VII. 12–14 & XI. 52; XI. 56; XIII. 15 & 16; 26; XIII in general.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Kristin Galpin]

The Commentators.
Sun Tzŭ can boast an exceptionally long and distinguished roll of commentators, which would do honour 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,

p. xxxv

must therefore be susceptible of treatment in a great variety of ways. 1

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 Tzŭ actually came from the pen of this extraordinary man, whose biography in the San Kuo Chih 2 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 marvellous 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, Lü Pu and the two Yüan, 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." 3 Ts‘ao Kung's notes on Sun Tzŭ, 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 littérateur. Sometimes, indeed, owing to extreme compression,




p. xxxvi

they are scarcely intelligible and stand no less in need of a commentary than the text itself. 1 As we have seen, Ts‘ao Kung is the reputed author of the #, a book on war in 100,000 odd words, now lost, but mentioned in the #. 2

2. # Mêng Shih. The commentary which has come down to us under this name is comparatively meagre, 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, 3 but this is obviously a mistake, as his work is mentioned in the #. In Sun Hsing-yen's preface, he appears as Mêng Shih of the Liang dynasty [502–557]. Others would identify him with # Mêng K‘ang of the 3rd century. In the #, 4 he is named last of the # "Five Commentators," the others being Wei Wu Ti, Tu Mu, Ch‘ên Hao and Chia Lin.

3. # Li Ch‘üan of the 8th century was a well-known writer on military tactics. His # has been in constant use down to the present day. The # mentions # (lives of famous generals from the Chou to the T‘ang dynasty) as written by him. 5 He is also generally supposed to be the real author of the popular Taoist tract, the #. According to Ch‘ao Kung-wu and the T‘ien-i-ko catalogue, 6 he followed the # text of Sun Tzŭ, which differs considerably from those







p. xxxvii

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 Tzŭ, his notes being taken from the T‘ung Tien, the encyclopaedic treatise on the Constitution which was his life-work. They are largely repetitions of Ts‘ao Kung and Mêng Shih, besides which it is believed that he drew on the ancient commentaries of # Wang Ling and others. Owing to the peculiar arrangement of the 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 (803–85 2) is perhaps best known as a poet—a bright star even in the glorious galaxy of the Tang 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. 1 His notes, therefore, are well worth attention. They are very copious, and replete with historical parallels. The gist of Sun Tzŭ's work is thus summarised by him: "Practise benevolence and justice, but on the other hand make full use of artifice and measures of expediency." 2 He further declared that all the military



p. xxxviii

triumphs and disasters of the thousand years which had elapsed since Sun Wu's death would, upon examination, be found to uphold and corroborate, in every particular, the maxims contained in his book. 1 Tu Mu's somewhat spiteful charge against Ts‘ao Kung has already been considered elsewhere.

6. # Ch‘ên 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 Tzŭ 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. 2 Ou-yang Hsiu, writing in the middle of the 11th century, calls Ts‘ao Kung, Tu Mu and Ch‘ên Hao the three chief commentators on Sun Tzŭ (#), and observes that Ch‘ên 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 Tzŭ is mentioned in the # and was afterwards republished by # Chi Hsieh of the same dynasty together with those of Mêng Shih and Tu Yu. 3 It is of somewhat scanty texture, and in point of quality, too, perhaps the least valuable of the eleven.

8. # Mei Yao-ch‘ên (1002–1060), commonly known by his "style" as Mei # Shêng-yü, 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 Tzŭ, distorting his words and trying to make them square with their own one-sided views. Thus, though




p. xxxix


commentators have not been lacking, only a few have proved equal to the task. My friend Shêng-yü has not fallen into this mistake. In attempting to provide a critical commentary for Sun Tzŭ'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, 1 nor with the nine punitive measures prescribed to the Minister of War. 2 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 Shêng-yü has brushed aside all the obstinate prejudices of these critics, and has tried to bring out the true meaning of Sun Tzŭ 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, coining generations will have constant reason to thank my friend Shêng-yü. 3

Making some allowance for the exuberance of friendship, I am inclined to endorse this favourable judgment, and would certainly place him above Ch'ên Hao in order of merit.




p. xl

9. # Wang Hsi, also of the Sung dynasty, is decidedly original in some of his interpretations, but much less judicious than Mei Yao-ch‘ên, 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 Tzŭ, filling up lacunae and correcting mistakes. 1

10. # Ho Yen-hsi of the Sung dynasty. The personal name of this commentator is given as above by # Chêng Ch‘iao in the T‘ung Chih, written about the middle of the twelfth century, but he appears simply as # Ho Shih in the Yü 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 Chêng Ch‘iao's statement, otherwise I should have been inclined to hazard a guess and identify him with one # Ho Ch‘ü-fei, the author of a short treatise on war entitled #, who lived in the latter part of the 11th century. 2 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 Yü. The list closes with a commentator of no great originality perhaps, but gifted with admirable powers of lucid exposition. His commentary is based on that of Ts‘ao Kung, whose terse sentences he contrives to expand and develop in masterly fashion. Without Chang Yü, 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



p. xli

the Yü Hai, but it finds a niche in the T‘ung Chih, which also names him as the author of the # "Lives of Famous Generals." 1

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 practise the art of war. But when [Chao] Yüan-hao's rebellion came [1038–42] and the frontier generals were defeated time after time, the Court made strenuous enquiry for men skilled in war, and military topics became the vogue amongst all the high officials. Hence it is that the commentators of Sun Tzŭ in our dynasty belong mainly to that period." 2

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 #); # Chang Tzŭ-shang; # Chia Hsü of # Wei; 3 and # Shên 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-yü. 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. Certainly in the case of the latter, the entry #, in the T‘ung K‘ao, without the following note, would give one to understand that he had written an independent commentary of his own.

There are two works, described in the




p. xlii

[paragraph continues] Ssu K‘u Ch‘üan Shu 1 and no doubt extremely rare, which I should much like to have seen. One is entitled #, in 5 chüan. It gives selections from four new commentators, probably of the Ming dynasty, as well as from the eleven known to us. The names of the four are # Hsieh Yüan; # Chang Ao; # Li Ts‘ai; and # Huang Chih-chêng. The other work is # in 4 chüan, compiled by # Chêng Tuan of the present dynasty. It is a compendium of information on ancient warfare, with special reference to Sun Tzŭ's 13 chapters.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Footnotes
xxxv:1 Preface to Mei Yao-ch‘ên's edition: #

xxxv:2 See #, ch. 1.

xxxv:3 Loc. cit.: #.

xxxvi:1 Cf. # Catalogue of the library of the # Fan family at Ningpo, #, fol. 12 v°: # "His commentary is frequently obscure but furnishes a clue, but does not fully develop the meaning."

xxxvi:2 See #, ch. 141 ad init.

xxxvi:3 Wên Hsien T‘ung K‘ao, ch. 221, f. 9 v°.

xxxvi:4 Ch. 207, f. 5 r°.

xxxvi:5 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.

xxxvi:6 Loc. cit.

xxxvii:1 Wên Hsien T‘ung K‘ao, ch. 221, f. 9: #.

xxxvii:2 Preface to his commentary (T‘u Shu, # ch. 442): #.

xxxviii:1 Ibid.: #.

xxxviii:2 T‘ung K‘ao, loc. cit.: #.

xxxviii:3 Ibid.

xxxix:1 The Hsia, the Shang and the Chou. Although the last-named was nominally existent in Sun Tzŭ's day, it retained hardly a vestige of power, and the old military organisation had practically gone by the hoard. I can suggest no other explanation of the passage.

xxxix:2 See Chou Li, XXIX. 6–10.

xxxix:3 See T‘u Shu, #, ch. 90, f. 2 v°: #.

xl:1 T‘ung K‘ao, ch. 221, f. 11 r°: #.

xl:2 See #, ch. 99, f. 16 v°.

xli:1 This appears to be still extant. See Wylie's "Notes," p. 91 (new edition).

xli:2 T‘ung K‘ao, loc. cit.: #.

xli:3 A notable person in his day. His biography is given in the San Kuo Chih, ch. 10.

xlii:1 Ch. 100, ff. 2, 3.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Kristin Galpin]

Appreciations of Sun Tzŭ.
Sun Tzŭ 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. B.C. 196), 2 # Fêng I (d. A.D. 34), 3 # Lü Mêng (d. 219), 4 and # Yo Fei (1103–1141). 5 The opinion of Ts‘ao Kung, who disputes with Han Hsin the highest place in Chinese military annals, has already been recorded. 6 Still more remarkable, in one way, is the testimony of purely literary men, such as # Su Hsün (the father of Su Tung-p‘o), who wrote several essays on military topics, all of which owe their chief inspiration to Sun Tzŭ. The following short passage by him is preserved in the Yü Hai: 7—







p. xliii


Sun Wu's saying, that in war one cannot make certain of conquering, 1 is very different indeed from what other books tell us. 2 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 Tzŭ's work, where the style is terse, but the meaning fully brought out. 3

The #, ch. 17, contains the following extract from the # "Impartial Judgments in the Garden of Literature" by # Chêng Hou:—


Sun Tzŭ'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 Yü, the I Ching and the great Commentary, 4 as well as the writings of Mencius, Hsün K‘uang and Yang Chu, all fall below the level of Sun Tzŭ. 5

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." 6








--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Footnotes
xlii:2 See p. 144.

xlii:3 Hou Han Shu, ch. 17 ad init.

xlii:4 San Kuo Chih, ch. 54, f. 10 v° (commentary).

xlii:5 Sung Shih, ch. 365 ad init.

xlii:6 The few Europeans who have yet had an opportunity of acquainting themselves with Sun Tzŭ 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 on page 77 is one that the people of this country would do well to take to heart."

xlii:7 Ch. 540, f. 13 r°.

xliii:1 See IV. § 3.

xliii:2 The allusion may be to Mencius VI. 2. ix. 2: #.

xliii:3 #.

xliii:4 The Tso Chuan.

xliii:5 #.

xliii:6 #.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Kristin Galpin]

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

p. xliv

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 centralisation 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 found 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 illumined 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 Tzŭ 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

p. xlv

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 Ssŭ-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 succour 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 "civilisation," condemning the use of military weapons? They will surely bring our country to impotence and dishonour 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. 1

The next piece is taken from Tu Mu's preface to his commentary on Sun Tzŭ:—


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


p. xlvi


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 haling 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 1 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 institution of torture and flogging. For more serious outbreaks of lawlessness, which are hard to suppress, a greater amount of force is necessary: 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 2 …

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." 3 "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 of the way in





p. xlvii


which, through sheer lack of reasoning, men unhappily lose sight of fundamental principles. 1

When the Duke of Chou was minister under Ch‘êng Wang, he regulated ceremonies and made music, and venerated the arts of scholarship and learning; yet when the barbarians of the River Huai revolted, 2 he sallied forth and chastised them. When Confucius held office under the Duke of Lu, and a meeting was convened at Chia-ku, 3 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? 4


We have seen that the great Chu Hsi held Sun Tzŭ 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." 5 Replying to K‘ung Wên-tzŭ, he said: "I have not been instructed about buff-coats and weapons." 6 "But if we turn to the meeting at Chia-ku, 7 we find that he used armed force against the men of Lai, 8 so that the marquis of Ch‘i was overawed. Again, when the inhabitants of Pi revolted, he ordered his officers to attack them, whereupon they were defeated and fled in confusion. 9 He once tittered the words: "If I fight, I










p. xlviii


conquer." 1 And Jan Yu also said: "The Sage exercises both civil and military functions." 2 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. 3

Sun Hsing-yen, the editor of Sun Tzŭ, writes in similar strain:—


Confucius said: "I am unversed in military matters." 4 He also said: "If I fight, I conquer." 4 Confucius ordered ceremonies and regulated music. Now war constitutes one of the five classes of State ceremonial, 5 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 Tzŭ, who was employed by Wu Tzŭ-hsü, there is no need to learn it oneself. Hence the remark added by Confucius: "If I fight, I conquer." 6

The men of the present day, however, wilfully 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, 7 as a proof that all military theory is useless. Again, seeing









p. xlix


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. 1 Weapons are baneful 2 and fighting perilous; and unless a general is in constant practice, he ought not to hazard other men's lives in battle. 3 Hence it is essential that Sun Tzŭ's 13 chapters should be studied. 4

Hsiang Liang used to instruct his nephew Chi 5 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 realise that the tricks and artifices of war are beyond verbal computation. Duke Hsiang of Sung 6 and King Yen of Hsü 7 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, 8 and also of his having left the Sung State in disguise. 9 Can we then recklessly arraign Sun Tzŭ for disregarding truth and honesty? 10













--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Footnotes
xlv:1 Shih Chi, ch. 25, fol. 1: #.

xlvi:1 The first Instance of # in the P‘ei Wên Yün Fu is from Ssŭ-ma Ch‘ien's letter to # Jên An (see #, ch. 41, f. 9 r°), where M. Chavannes translates it "la cangue et la chaîne." But in the present passage it seems rather to indicate some single instrument of torture.

xlvi:2 #.

xlvi:3 Cf. Shih Chi, cf. 47, f. 11 v°.

xlvii:1 #.

xlvii:2 See Shu Ching, preface § 55.

xlvii:3 See Tso Chuan, # X. 2; Shih Chi, ch. 47, t. 4 r°.

xlvii:4 #.

xlvii:5 Lun Yü, XV, 1.

xlvii:6 Tso Chuan, #, XI.

xlvii:7 See supra.

xlvii:8 Tso Chuan, #, X. 2.

xlvii:9 Ibid. XII. 5; Chia Yü, ch. 1 ad fin.

xlviii:1 I have failed to trace this utterance. See note 2 on p. xliii.

xlviii:2 See supra.

xlviii:3 #, loc. cit.: #.

xlviii:4 See supra.

xlviii:5 Viz., #. the other four being #, #, # and # "worship, mourning, entertainment of guests and festive rites." See Shu Ching, II, 1, iii. 8, and Chou Li, IX, fol. 49.

xlviii:6 Preface to Sun Tzŭ: #.

xlviii:7 See p. 166.

xlix:1 This is a rather obscure allusion to Tso Chuan, #, XXXI. 4, where Tzŭ-ch‘an says: # "If you have a piece of beautiful brocade, you will nor employ a mere learner to make it up."

xlix:2 Cf. Tao Tê Ching, ch. 31: #.

xlix:3 Sun Hsing-yen might have quoted Confucius again. See Lun Yü, XIII. 29, 30.

xlix:4 #.

xlix:5 Better known as Hsiang # Yü [B.C. 233–202].

xlix:6 The third among the # (or #) enumerated on p. 141. For the incident referred to, see Tso Chuan, #, XXII. 4.

xlix:7 See supra, p. xvi, note 4.

xlix:8 Shih Chi, ch. 47, f. 7 r°.

xlix:9 Ibid., ch. 38, f. 8 v°.

xlix:10 # p. l #.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Kristin Galpin]

p. l

BIBLIOGRAPHY.
The following are the oldest Chinese treatises on war, after Sun Tzŭ. The notes on each have been drawn principally from the # Ssŭ k‘u ch‘üan shu chien ming mu lu, ch. 9, fol. 22 sqq.

1. # Wu Tzŭ, in 1 chüan or 6 # chapters. By # Wu Ch‘i (d. B.C. 381). A genuine work. See Shih Chi, ch. 65.

2. # Ssŭ-ma Fa, in 1 chüan or 5 chapters. Wrongly attributed to # Ssŭ-ma Jang-chü 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 with in its pages. 1 See Shih Chi, ch. 64.

The Ssŭ K‘u Ch‘üan Shu (ch. 99, f. 1) remarks that the oldest three treatises on war, Sun Tzŭ, Wu Tzŭ and the Ssŭ-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 2—in strong contrast to later works, in which the science of war is usually blended with metaphysics, divination and magical arts in general.

3. # Liu T‘ao, in 6 chüan or 60 chapters. Attributed to # Lü Wang (or Lü # Shang, also known as # T‘ai Kung) of the 12th century B.C. 3 But




p. li

its style does not belong to the era of the Three Dynasties. 1 # Lu Tê-ming (550–625 A.D.) mentions the work, and enumerates the headings of the six sections, #, #, #, #, # and #, so that the forgery cannot have been later than the Sui dynasty.

4. # Wei Liao Tzŭ, in 5 chüan. Attributed Wei Liao (4th cent. B.C.), who studied under the famous # Kuei-ku Tzŭ. The #, under #, mentions a book of Wei Liao 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. 2 It has been furnished with a commentary by the well-known Sung philosopher # Chang Tsai.

5. # San Lüeh, in 3 chüan. Attributed to #, Huang-shih Kung, a legendary personage who is said to have bestowed it on Chang Liang (d. B.C. 187) in an interview on a bridge. 3 But here again, the style is not that of works dating from the Ch‘in or Han period. The Han Emperor Kuang Wu [A.D. 25–57] 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. 4





p. lii

6. # Li Wei Kung Wên 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. 1

7. # Li Ching Ping Fa (not to be confounded with the foregoing) is a short treatise in 8 chapters, preserved in the T‘ung Tien, but not published separately. This fact explains its omission from the Ssŭ K‘u Ch‘üan Shu.

8. # Wu Ch‘i Ching, 2 in 1 chüan. Attributed to the legendary minister # Fêng Hou, with exegetical notes by # Kung-sun Hung of the Han dynasty (d. B.C. 121), and said to have been eulogised by the celebrated general, # Ma Lung (d. A.D. 300). Yet the earliest mention of it is in the #. Although a forgery, the work is well put together. 3

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 chüan), preserved in the # Yung Lo Ta Tien; (2) # Chiang Yüan (1 ch.); and (3) # Hsin Shu (I ch.), which steals wholesale from Sun Tzŭ. None of these has the slightest claim to be considered genuine.




p. liii

Most of the large Chinese encyclopaedias contain extensive sections devoted to the literature of war. The following references may be found useful:—


# T‘ung Tien (circâ 800 A.D.), ch. 148–162.

# T‘ai P‘ing Yü Lan (983), ch. 270–359.

# Wên Hsien T‘ung K‘ao (13th cent.), ch. 221.

# Yü Hai (13th cent.), ch. 140, 141.

# San Ts‘ai T‘u Hui (16th cent), # ch. 7, 8.

# Kuang Po Wu Chih (1607), ch. 31, 32.

# Ch‘ien Ch‘io Lei Shu (1632), ch. 75.

# Yüan Chien Lei Han (1710), ch. 206–229.

# Ku Chin T‘u Shu Chi Ch‘êng (1726), section XXX, esp. ch. 81–90.

# Hsü Wên Hsien T‘ung K‘ao (1784), ch. 121–134.

# Huang Ch‘ao Ching Shih Wên 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 (circâ 1150), ch. 68.


To these of course must be added the great Catalogue of the Imperial Library:


# Ssŭ K‘u Ch‘üan Shu Tsung Mu T‘i Yao (1790), ch. 99, 100.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Footnotes
l:1 #.

l:2 #.

l:3 See p. 174. 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 Wên Wang.

li:1 #.

li:2 #.

li:3 See Han Shu, #, ch. 40. The work is there called #. Hence it has been confused with the Liu T‘ao. The T‘u Shu attributes both the Liu T‘ao and the San Lüeh to T‘ai Kung.

li:4 #. Another work said to have been written by Huang-shih Kung, and also included in the military section of the Imperial Catalogue, is the # Su Shu in 1 chüan. A short ethical treatise of Taoist p. lii savour, having no reference whatever to war, it is pronounced a forgery from the hand of # Chang Shang-ying (d. 1121), who edited it with commentary. Correct Wylie's "Notes," new edition, p. 90, and Courant's "Catalogue des Livres Chinois," no. 5056.

lii:1 #. We are told in the # that the above six works, together with Sun Tzŭ, were those prescribed for military training in the # period (1078–85). See # Yü Hai, ch. 140, f. 4 r°.

lii:2 Also written # and # Wu Chi Ching.

lii:3 #.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Kristin Galpin]

I. LAYING PLANS 1.

1. Sun Tzŭ said: The art of war is of vital importance to the State.

2. It is a matter of life and death, a road either to safety or to ruin. Hence it is a subject of inquiry which can on no account be neglected.

3. The art of war, then, is governed by five constant factors, to be taken into account in one's deliberations, when seeking to determine the conditions obtaining in the field. 2


p. 2



4. These are: (1) The Moral Law; (2) Heaven; (3) Earth; (4) The Commander; (5) Method and discipline. 1


5, 6. The Moral Law causes the people to be in complete accord with their ruler, so that they will follow him regardless of their lives, undismayed by any danger. 2


7. Heaven signifies night and day, cold and heat, times and seasons. 3


8. Earth comprises distances, great and small; danger and security; open ground and narrow passes; the chances of life and death. 4


p. 3



9. The Commander stands for the virtues of wisdom, sincerity, benevolence, courage and strictness. 1


10. By Method and discipline are to be understood the marshalling of the army in its proper subdivisions, the gradations of rank among the officers, the maintenance of roads by which supplies may reach the army, and the control of military expenditure. 2


11. These five heads should be familiar to every general: he who knows them will be victorious; he who knows them not will fail.

12. Therefore, in your deliberations, when seeking to determine the military conditions, let them be made the basis of a comparison, in this wise:— 3


p. 4



13. (1) Which of the two sovereigns is imbued with the Moral law? 1


(2) Which of the two generals has most ability?

(3) With whom lie the advantages derived from Heaven and Earth? 2


(4) On which side is discipline most rigorously enforced? 3


(5) Which army is the stronger? 4


(6) On which side are officers and men more highly trained? 5


(7) In which army is there the greater constancy both in reward and punishment? 6


14. By means of these seven considerations I can forecast victory or defeat.

p. 5



15. The general that hearkens to my counsel and acts upon it, will conquer:—let such a one be retained in command! The general that hearkens not to my counsel nor acts upon it, will suffer defeat:—let such a one be dismissed! 1


16. While heeding the profit of my counsel, avail yourself also of any helpful circumstances over and beyond the ordinary rules. 2


17. According as circumstances are favourable, one should modify one's plans. 3



p. 6



18. All warfare is based on deception. 1


19. Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near.

20. Hold out baits to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and crush him. 2


21. If he is secure at all points, be prepared for him. If he is in superior strength, evade him. 3


22. If your opponent is of choleric temper, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant. 4


p. 7



23. If he is taking his ease, give him no rest. 1


If his forces are united, separate them. 2


24. Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where you are not expected.

25. These military devices, leading to victory, must not be divulged beforehand. 3


26. Now the general who wins a battle makes many calculations in his temple ere the battle is fought. 4


p. 8

[paragraph continues] The general who loses a battle makes but few calculations beforehand. Thus do many calculations lead to victory, and few calculations to defeat: how much more no calculation at all! It is by attention to this point that I can foresee who is likely to win or lose.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Footnotes
1:1 This is the only possible meaning of #, which M. Amiot and Capt. Calthrop wrongly translate "Fondements de l’art militaire" and "First principles" respectively. Ts‘ao Kung says it refers to the deliberations in the temple selected by the general for his temporary use, or as we should say, in his tent. See § 26.

1:2 The old text of the T‘ung Tien has #, etc. Later editors have inserted # after #, and # before #. The former correction is perhaps superfluous, but the latter seems necessary in order to make sense, and is supported by the accepted reading in § 12, where the same words recur. I am inclined to think, however, that the whole sentence from # to # is an interpolation and has no business here at all. If it be retained, Wang Hsi must be right in saying that # denotes the "seven considerations" in § 13. # are the circumstances or conditions likely to bring about victory or defeat. The antecedent of the first # is #; of the second, #. # p. 3 contains the idea of "comparison with the enemy," which cannot well be brought out here, but will appear in § 12. Altogether, difficult though it is, the passage is not so hopelessly corrupt as to justify Capt. Calthrop in burking it entirely.

2:1 It appears from what follows that Sun Tzŭ means by # a principle of harmony. not unlike the Tao of Lao Tzŭ in its moral aspect. One might be tempted to render it by "morale," were it not considered as an attribute of the ruler in § 13.

2:2 The original text omits #, inserts an # after each #, and omits # after #. Capt. Calthrop translates: "If the ruling authority be upright, the people are united"—a very pretty sentiment, but wholly out of place in what purports to be a translation of Sun Tzŭ.

2:3 The commentators, I think, make an unnecessary mystery of #. Thus Mêng Shih defines the words as # "the hard and the soft, waxing and waning," which does not help us much. Wang Hsi, however, may be right in saying that what is meant is # "the general economy of Heaven," including the five elements, the four seasons, wind and clouds, and other phenomena.

2:4 #. (omitted by Capt. Calthrop) may have been included here because the safety of an army depends largely on its quickness to turn these geographical features to account.

3:1 The five cardinal virtues of the Chinese are (1) # humanity or benevolence; (2) # uprightness of mind; (3) # self-respect, self-control, or "proper feeling;" (4) # wisdom; (5) # sincerity or good faith. Here # and # are put before #, and the two military virtues of "courage" and "strictness" substituted for # and #.

3:2 The Chinese of this sentence is so concise as to be practically unintelligible without commentary. I have followed the interpretation of Ts‘ao Kung, who joins # and again #. Others take each of the six predicates separately. # has the somewhat uncommon sense of "cohort" or division of an army. Capt. Calthrop translates: "Partition and ordering of troops," which only covers #.

3:3 The Yü Lan has an interpolated # before #. It is obvious, however, that the # just enumerated cannot be described as #. Capt. Calthrop, forced to give some rendering of the words which he had omitted in § 3, shows himself decidedly hazy: "Further, with regard to these and the following seven matters, the condition of the enemy must be compared with our own." He does not appear to see that the seven queries or considerations which follow arise directly out of the Five heads, instead of being supplementary to them.

4:1 I.e., "is in harmony with his subjects." Cf. § 5.

4:2 See §§ 7, 8.

4:3 Tu Mu alludes to the remarkable story of Ts‘ao Ts‘ao (A.D. 155–220), who was such a strict disciplinarian that once, in accordance with his own severe regulations against injury to standing crops, he condemned himself to death for having allowed his horse to shy into a field of corn! However, in lieu of losing his head, he was persuaded to satisfy his sense of justice by cutting off his hair. Ts‘ao Ts‘ao's own comment on the present passage is characteristically curt: # "when you lay down a law, see that it is not disobeyed; if it is disobeyed, the offender must be put to death."

4:4 Morally as well as physically. As Mei Yao-ch‘ên puts it, #, which might be freely rendered "esprit de corps and 'big battalions.'"

4:5 Tu Yu quotes # as saying: "Without constant practice, the officers will be nervous and undecided when mustering for battle; without constant practice, the general will be wavering and irresolute when the crisis is at hand."

4:6 # literally "clear;" that is, on which side is there the most absolute certainty that merit will be properly rewarded and misdeeds summarily punished?

5:1 The form of this paragraph reminds us that Sun Tzŭ's treatise was composed expressly for the benefit of his patron # Ho Lü, king of the Wu State. It is not necessary, however, to understand # before # (as some commentators do), or to take # as "generals under my command."

5:2 Capt. Calthrop blunders amazingly over this sentence: "Wherefore, with regard to the foregoing, considering that with us lies the advantage, and the generals agreeing, we create a situation which promises victory." Mere logic should have kept him from penning such frothy balderdash.

5:3 Sun Tzŭ, as a practical soldier, will have none of the "bookish theoric." He cautions us here not to pin our faith to abstract principles; "for," as Chang Yü puts it, "while the main laws of strategy can be stated clearly enough for the benefit of all and sundry, you must be guided by the actions of the enemy in attempting to secure a favourable position in actual warfare." On the eve of the battle of Waterloo, Lord Uxbridge, commanding the cavalry, went to the Duke of Wellington in order to learn what his plans and calculations were for the morrow, because, as he explained, he might suddenly find himself Commander-in-chief and would be unable to frame new plans in a critical moment. The Duke listened quietly and then said: "Who will attack the first to-morrow—I or Bonaparte?" "Bonaparte," replied Lord Uxbridge. "Well," continued the Duke, "Bonaparte has not given me any idea of his projects; and as my plans will depend upon his, how can you expect me to tell you what mine are?" *

5:* "Words on Wellington," by Sir W. Fraser.

6:1 The truth of this pithy and profound saying will be admitted by every soldier. Col. Henderson tells us that Wellington, great in so many military qualities, was especially distinguished by "the extraordinary skill with which he concealed his movements and deceived both friend and foe."

6:2 #, as often in Sun Tzŭ, is used in the sense of #. It is rather remarkable that all the commentators, with the exception of Chang Yü, refer # to the enemy: "when he is in disorder, crush him." It is more natural to suppose that Sun Tzŭ is still illustrating the uses of deception in war.

6:3 The meaning of # is made clear from chap. VI, where it is opposed to # "weak or vulnerable spots." #, according to Tu Yu and other commentators, has reference to the keenness of the men as well as to numerical superiority. Capt. Calthrop evolves an extraordinarily far-fetched translation: "If there are defects, give an appearance of perfection, and awe the enemy. Pretend to be strong, and so cause the enemy to avoid you"!

6:4 I follow Chang Yü in my interpretation of #. # is expanded by Mei Yao-ch‘ên into #. Wang Tzŭ, quoted by Tu Yu, p. 7 says that the good tactician plays with his adversary as a cat plays with a mouse, first feigning weakness and immobility, and then suddenly pouncing upon him.

7:1 This is probably the meaning, though Mei Yao-ch‘ên has the note: # we are taking our ease, wait for the enemy to tire himself out." The Yü Lan has # "Lure him on and tire him out". This would seem also to have been Ts‘ao Kung's text, judging by his comment #.

7:2 Less plausible is the interpretation favoured by most of the commentators: "If sovereign and subject are in accord, put division between them."

7:3 This seems to be the way in which Ts‘ao Kung understood the passage, and is perhaps the best sense to be got out of the text as it stands. Most of the commentators give the following explanation: "It is impossible to lay down rules for warfare before you come into touch with the enemy." This would be very plausible if it did not ignore #, which unmistakably refers to the maxims which Sun Tzŭ has been laying down. It is possible, of course, that # may be a later interpolation, in which case the sentence would practically mean: "Success in warfare cannot be taught." As an alternative, however, I would venture to suggest that a second # may have fallen out after #, so that we get: "These maxims for succeeding in war are the first that ought to be imparted."

7:4 p. 8 Chang Yü tells us that in ancient times it was customary for a temple to be set apart for the use of a general who was about to take the field, in order that he might there elaborate his plan of campaign. Capt. Calthrop misunderstands it as "the shrine of the ancestors," and gives a loose and inaccurate rendering of the whole passage.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.sacred-texts.com/tao/aow/aow09.htm

[Kristin Galpin]

[Kristin Galpin]

II. WAGING WAR 1.

1. Sun Tzŭ said: In the operations of war, where there are in the field a thousand swift chariots, as many heavy chariots, and a hundred thousand mail-clad soldiers, 2 with provisions enough to carry them a thousand li, 3 the expenditure at home and at the front, including entertainment of guests, small items such as glue and paint,



p. 10

[Kristin Galpin]