On hemmed-in ground, I would block any way of retreat.
意欲突圍示以守固 “To make it seem that I mean to defend the
position, whereas my real intention is to burst suddenly through
the enemy’s lines” [Mêng Shih]; 使士卒必死戰也 “in order to make my
soldiers fight with desperation” [Mei Yao-ch‘ên]; 懼人有走心
“fearing lest my men be tempted to run away” [Wang Hsi]. Tu Mu
points out that this is the converse of VII. § 36, where it is the
enemy who is surrounded. In 532 A.D., 高歡 Kao Huan, afterwards
Emperor and canonised as 神武 Shên-wu, was surrounded by a great
army under 爾朱兆 Êrh-chu Chao and others. His own force was
comparatively small, consisting only of 2000 horse and something
under 30,000 foot. The lines of investment had not been drawn very
closely together, gaps being left at certain points. But Kao Huan,
instead of trying to escape, actually made a shift to block all
the remaining outlets himself by driving into them a number of
oxen and donkeys roped together. As soon as his officers and men
saw that there was nothing for it but to conquer or die, their
spirits rose to an extraordinary pitch of exaltation, and they
charged with such desperate ferocity that the opposing ranks broke
and crumbled under their onslaught. [See Tu Mu’s commentary, and
北齊書 ch. 1, fol. 6.]
On desperate ground, I would proclaim to my soldiers the hopelessness
of saving their lives.
Tu Yu says: 焚輜重棄糧食塞井夷竈示之無活必殊死戰也 “Burn your baggage
and impedimenta, throw away your stores and provisions, choke up
the wells, destroy your cooking-stoves, and make it plain to your
men that they cannot survive, but must fight to the death.” Mei
Yao-ch‘ên says epigrammatically: 必死可生 “The only chance of life
lies in giving up all hope of it.” This concludes what Sun Tzŭ has
to say about “grounds” and the “variations” corresponding to them.
Reviewing the passages which bear on this important subject, we
cannot fail to be struck by the desultory and unmethodical fashion
in which it is treated. Sun Tzŭ begins abruptly in VIII. § 2 to
enumerate “variations” before touching on “grounds” at all, but
only mentions five, namely nos. 7, 5, 8 and 9 of the subsequent
list, and one that is not included in it. A few varieties of
ground are dealt with in the earlier portion of chap. IX, and then
chap. X sets forth six new grounds, with six variations of plan
to match. None of these is mentioned again, though the first
is hardly to be distinguished from ground no. 4 in the next
chapter. At last, in chap. XI, we come to the Nine Grounds _par
excellence_, immediately followed by the variations. This takes us
down to § 14. In §§ 43–45, fresh definitions are provided for nos.
5, 6, 2, 8 and 9 (in the order given), as well as for the tenth
ground noticed in chap VIII; and finally, the nine variations
are enumerated once more from beginning to end, all, with the
exception of 5, 6 and 7, being different from those previously
given. Though it is impossible to account for the present state
of Sun Tzŭ’s text, a few suggestive facts may be brought into
prominence: (1) Chap. VIII, according to the title, should deal
with nine variations, whereas only five appear. (2) It is an
abnormally short chapter. (3) Chap. XI is entitled The Nine
Grounds. Several these are defined twice over, besides which there
are two distinct lists of the corresponding variations. (4) The
length of the chapter is disproportionate, being double that of
any other except IX. I do not propose to draw any inferences from
these facts, beyond the general conclusion that Sun Tzŭ’s work
cannot have come down to us in the shape in which it left his
hands: chap. VIII is obviously defective and probably out of
place, while XI seems to contain matter that has either been added
by a later hand or ought to appear elsewhere.