孫子武 Sun Tzŭ Wu was a native of the Ch‘i State. His _Art of War_
brought him to the notice of 闔廬 Ho Lu,[5] King of 吳 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
to blame. But if his orders _are_ clear, and the soldiers
nevertheless disobey, then it is the fault of their officers.
So saying, he ordered the leaders of the two companies to be
beheaded. Now the King of Wu was watching the scene from the top
of a raised pavilion; and when he saw that his 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,
孫臏 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:
孫子臏脚而論兵法 “Sun Tzŭ had his feet cut off and yet continued to
discuss the art of war.”[6] 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.
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 子胥 Tzŭ-hsü [i.e. 伍員 Wu Yüan] and 伯嚭 Po P‘ei,
and attacked Ch‘u. He captured the town of 舒 Shu and slew the two
prince’s sons who had formerly been generals of Wu. He was then
meditating a descent on 郢 Ying [the capital]; but the general Sun
Wu said: “The army is exhausted.[7] It is not yet possible. We
must wait”....[8] [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, 子常 Tzŭ-ch‘ang,[9] is grasping and
covetous, and the princes of 唐 T‘ang and 蔡 Ts‘ai both have a
grudge against him. If Your Majesty has resolved to make a grand
attack, you must win over T‘ang and Ts‘ai, and then you may
succeed.” Ho Lu followed this advice, [beat Ch‘u in five pitched
battles and marched into Ying].[10]
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 律書 (the earlier portion of which M. Chavannes
believes to be a fragment of a treatise on Military Weapons), there
occurs this passage:[11]
From this time onward, a number of famous soldiers arose, one after
the other: 咎犯 Kao-fan,[12] who was employed by the Chin State;
Wang-tzŭ,[13] 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
(申明軍約).
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 吳越春秋 _Wu Yüeh Ch‘un Ch‘iu_, which is
supposed to have been written by 趙曄 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.[14] 3) He had previously
lived a retired life, and his contemporaries were unaware of his
ability.[15]
The following passage occurs in 淮南子 Huai-nan Tzŭ: “When sovereign and
ministers show perversity of mind, it is impossible even for a Sun Tzŭ
to encounter the foe.”[16] 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.
劉向 Liu Hsiang (B.C. 80–9) in his 新序 says: “The reason why Sun Wu at
the head of 30,000 men beat Ch‘u with 200,000 is that the latter were
undisciplined.”[17]
鄧名世 Têng Ming-shih in his 姓氏辨證書 (completed in 1134) informs us
that the surname 孫 was bestowed on Sun Wu’s grandfather by 景公 Duke
Ching of Ch‘i [547–490 B.C.]. Sun Wu’s father Sun 馮 P‘ing, rose to be
a Minister of State in Ch‘i, and Sun Wu himself, whose style was 長卿
Ch‘ang-ch‘ing, fled to Wu on account of the rebellion which was being
fomented by the kindred of 田鮑 T‘ien Pao. He had three sons, of whom
the second, named 明 Ming, was the father of Sun Pin. According to this
account, then, Pin was the grandson of Wu,[18] which, considering that
Sun Pin’s victory over 魏 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 曹操 Ts‘ao Ts‘ao, or
魏武帝 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.[19] The _Lun Yü_ says: “There must be a sufficiency of
military strength.”[20] The _Shu Ching_ mentions “the army” among
the “eight objects of government.”[21] The _I Ching_ says: “師
‘army’ indicates firmness and justice; the experienced leader will
have good fortune.”[22] The _Shih Ching_ says: “The King rose
majestic in his wrath, and he marshalled his troops.”[23] The
Yellow Emperor, T‘ang 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.”[24] 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[25] on the one hand
and Yen Wang on the other.[26] 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.[27]
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].[28] In his treatment of deliberation and
planning, the importance of rapidity in taking the field,[29]
clearness of conception, and depth of design, Sun 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.[30]
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_,[31] there is an
entry which has given rise to much discussion: 吳孫子八十二篇圖九卷 “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 史記正義 refers to an edition of Sun Tzŭ’s 兵法 of which the “13
chapters” formed the first _chüan_, adding that there were two other
_chüan_ besides.[32] 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 問答 _Wên Ta_, of which a specimen
dealing with the Nine Situations[33] is preserved in the 通典 _T‘ung
Tien_, and another in Ho Shih’s commentary. It is suggested 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. 畢以珣 Pi I-hsün,
author of the 孫子敘錄 _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.”[34] 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.[35] Then the numerous
other treatises attributed to Sun Tzŭ[36] 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. 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.[37]
Tu Mu, after Ts‘ao Kung the most important commentator on Sun Tzŭ,
composed the preface to his edition[38] about the middle of the ninth
century. After a somewhat lengthy defence of the military art,[39] 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.”[40] 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.[41] According to the _Wei Chih_, Ts‘ao himself wrote a
book on war in something over 100,000 words, known as the 新書. 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.”[42]
Tu Mu’s conjecture seems to be based on a passage in the 漢官解詁 “Wei
Wu Ti strung together Sun Wu’s Art of War,”[43] which in turn may have
resulted from a misunderstanding of the final words of Ts‘ao Kung’s
preface: 故撰爲略解焉. This, as Sun Hsing-yen points out,[44] is only a
modest way of saying that he made an explanatory paraphrase,[45] or in
other words, wrote a commentary on it. On the whole, the theory has
met with very little acceptance. Thus, the 四庫全書 says:[46] “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.”[47]
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 them are
widely distributed, so I will not discuss them here.”[48] 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 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
葉水心 Yeh Shui-hsin:[49]—
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,[50] Ts‘ao
Kuei,[51] Chu Chih-wu[52] and Chuan Shê-chu.[53] 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
P‘ei.[54] Is it credible that Sun Wu alone should have been passed
over?[55]
In point of literary style, Sun Tzŭ’s work belongs to the same
school as _Kuan Tzŭ_,[56] the _Liu T‘ao_,[57] and the _Yüeh Yü_,[58]
and may have been the production of some private scholar living
towards the end of the “Spring and Autumn” or the beginning of the
“Warring States” period.[59] 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.[60]
From the flourishing period of the Chou dynasty[61] 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”[62] 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[63] 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.[64]
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 破, 入, 威 and 顯
is certainly 闔廬, as is shown by the next words: 孫子與有力焉.[65]
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 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 夫槩 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.
陳振孫 Ch‘ên Chên-sun of the Sung dynasty has the note:[66]—
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.[67]