Confucius said: “I am unversed in military matters.” He also
said: “If I fight, I conquer.”[144] Confucius ordered ceremonies
and regulated music. Now war constitutes one of the five
classes of State ceremonial,[145] 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.”[146]
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,[147] as a proof that all
military theory is useless. Again, seeing that books on war have
to do with such things as opportunism in designing plans, and
the conversion of spies, they hold that the art is immoral and
unworthy of a sage. These people ignore the fact that the studies
of our scholars and the civil administration of our officials
also require steady application and practice before efficiency is
reached. The ancients were particularly chary of allowing mere
novices to botch their work.[148] Weapons are baneful[149] and
fighting perilous; and unless a general is in constant practice,
he ought not to hazard other men’s lives in battle.[150] Hence it
is essential that Sun Tzŭ’s 13 chapters should be studied.[151]
Hsiang Liang used to instruct his nephew Chi[152] 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[153] and King Yen of
Hsü[154] 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,[155]
and also of his having left the Sung State in disguise.[156] Can
we then recklessly arraign Sun Tzŭ for disregarding truth and
honesty?[157]
Bibliography.
The following are the oldest Chinese treatises on war, after Sun Tzŭ.
The notes on each have been drawn principally from the 四庫全書簡明目錄
_Ssŭ k‘u ch‘üan shu chien ming mu lu_, ch. 9, fol. 22 _sqq._
1. 吳子 Wu Tzŭ, in 1 _chüan_ or 6 篇 chapters. By 吳起 Wu Ch‘i (_d._
B.C. 381). A genuine work. See _Shih Chi_, ch. 65.
2. 司馬法 Ssŭ-ma Fa, in 1 _chüan_ or 5 chapters. Wrongly attributed to
司馬穰苴 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.[158] 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[159]—in strong contrast
to later works, in which the science of war is usually blended with
metaphysics, divination and magical arts in general.
3. 六韜 Liu T‘ao, in 6 _chüan_ or 60 chapters. Attributed to 呂望 Lü
Wang (or Lü 尙 Shang, also known as 太公 T‘ai Kung) of the 12th century
B.C.[160] But its style does not belong to the era of the Three
Dynasties.[161] 陸德明 Lu Tê-ming (550–625 A.D.) mentions the work, and
enumerates the headings of the six sections, 文, 武, 虎, 豹, 龍 and 犬,
so that the forgery cannot have been later than the Sui dynasty.
4. 尉繚子 Wei Liao Tzŭ, in 5 _chüan_. Attributed to Wei Liao (4th cent.
B.C.), who studied under the famous 鬼谷子 Kuei-ku Tzŭ. The 漢志, under
兵家, 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.[162] It has been furnished with a commentary by
the well-known Sung philosopher 張載 Chang Tsai.
5. 三略 San Lüeh, in 3 _chüan_. Attributed to 黃石公 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.[163] 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.[164]
6. 李衞公問對 Li Wei Kung Wên Tui, in 3 sections. Written in the form
of a dialogue between T‘ai Tsung and his great general 李靖 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.[165]
7. 李靖兵法 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. 握奇經 Wu Ch‘i Ching,[166] in 1 _chüan_. Attributed to the legendary
minister 風后 Fêng Hou, with exegetical notes by 公孫宏 Kung-sun Hung
of the Han dynasty (_d._ B.C. 121), and said to have been eulogised by
the celebrated general 馬隆 Ma Lung (_d._ A.D. 300). Yet the earliest
mention of it is in the 宋志. Although a forgery, the work is well put
together.[167]
Considering the high popular estimation in which 諸葛亮 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 十六策 Shih Liu Ts‘ê (1
_chüan_), preserved in the 永樂大典 _Yung Lo Ta Tien_; (2) 將苑 Chiang
Yüan (1 _ch._); and (3) 心書 Hsin Shu (1 _ch._), which steals wholesale
from Sun Tzŭ. None of these has the slightest claim to be considered
genuine.
Most of the large Chinese encyclopaedias contain extensive sections
devoted to the literature of war. The following references may be
found useful:—
通典 T‘ung Tien (_circâ_ 800 A.D.), ch. 148–162.
太平御覽 T‘ai P‘ing Yü Lan (983), ch. 270–359.
文獻通考 Wên Hsien T‘ung K‘ao (13th cent.), ch. 221.
玉海 Yü Hai (13th cent.), ch. 140, 141.
三才圖會 San Ts‘ai T‘u Hui (16th cent.), 人事 ch. 7, 8.
廣博物志 Kuang Po Wu Chih (1607), ch. 31, 32.
潛確類書 Ch‘ien Ch‘io Lei Shu (1632), ch. 75.
淵鑑類函 Yüan Chien Lei Han (1710), ch. 206–229.
古今圖書集成 Ku Chin T‘u Shu Chi Ch‘êng (1726), section XXX,
_esp._ ch. 81–90.
續文獻通考 Hsü Wên Hsien T‘ung K‘ao (1784), ch. 121–134.
皇朝經世文編 Huang Ch‘ao Ching Shih Wên Pien (1826), ch. 76, 77.
The bibliographical sections of certain historical works
also deserve mention:—
前漢書 Ch‘ien Han Shu, ch. 30.
隋書 Sui Shu, ch. 32–35.
舊唐書 Chiu T‘ang Shu, ch. 46, 47.
新唐書 Hsin T‘ang Shu, ch. 57–60.
宋史 Sung Shih, ch. 202–209.
通志 T‘ung Chih (_circâ_ 1150), ch. 68.
To these of course must be added the great Catalogue of the
Imperial Library:—
四庫全書總目提要 Ssŭ K‘u Ch‘üan Shu Tsung Mu T‘i Yao (1790), ch. 99, 100.