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 and MSS.
in the British Museum
1910
To my brother
Captain Valentine Giles, R.G.
in the hope that
a work 2400 years old
may yet contain lessons worth consideration
by the soldier of today
this translation
is affectionately dedicated.
Contents
Preface to the Project Gutenberg Etext
Preface by Lionel Giles
INTRODUCTION
Sun Wu and his Book
The Text of Sun Tzŭ
The Commentators
Appreciations of Sun Tzŭ
Apologies for War
Bibliography
Chapter I. Laying plans
Chapter II. Waging War
Chapter III. Attack by Stratagem
Chapter IV. Tactical Dispositions
Chapter V. Energy
Chapter VI. Weak Points and Strong
Chapter VII Manœuvring
Chapter VIII. Variation of Tactics
Chapter IX. The Army on the March
Chapter X. Terrain
Chapter XI. The Nine Situations
Chapter XII. The Attack by Fire
Chapter XIII. The Use of Spies
Preface to the Project Gutenberg Etext
When Lionel Giles began his translation of Sun Tzŭ’s _Art of War_, the
work was virtually unknown in Europe. Its introduction to Europe began
in 1782 when a French Jesuit Father living in China, Joseph Amiot,
acquired a copy of it, and translated it into French. It was not a good
translation because, according to Dr. Giles, "[I]t contains a great
deal that Sun Tzŭ did not write, and very little indeed of what he
did."
The first translation into English was published in 1905 in Tokyo by
Capt. E. F. Calthrop, R.F.A. However, this translation is, in the words
of Dr. Giles, "excessively bad." He goes further in this criticism: "It
is not merely a question of downright blunders, from which none can
hope to be wholly exempt. Omissions were frequent; hard passages were
willfully distorted or slurred over. Such offenses are less pardonable.
They would not be tolerated in any edition of a Latin or Greek classic,
and a similar standard of honesty ought to be insisted upon in
translations from Chinese." In 1908 a new edition of Capt. Calthrop’s
translation was published in London. It was an improvement on the
first—omissions filled up and numerous mistakes corrected—but new
errors were created in the process. Dr. Giles, in justifying his
translation, wrote: "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."
Clearly, Dr. Giles’ work established much of the groundwork for the
work of later translators who published their own editions. Of the
later editions of the _Art of War_ I have examined; two feature Giles’
edited translation and notes, the other two present the same basic
information from the ancient Chinese commentators found in the Giles
edition. Of these four, Giles’ 1910 edition is the most scholarly and
presents the reader an incredible amount of information concerning Sun
Tzŭ’s text, much more than any other translation.
The Giles’ edition of the _Art of War_, as stated above, was a
scholarly work. Dr. Giles was a leading sinologue at the time and an
assistant in the Department of Oriental Printed Books and Manuscripts
in the British Museum. Apparently he wanted to produce a definitive
edition, superior to anything else that existed and perhaps something
that would become a standard translation. It was the best translation
available for 50 years. But apparently there was not much interest in
Sun Tzŭ in English-speaking countries since it took the start of the
Second World War to renew interest in his work. Several people
published unsatisfactory English translations of Sun Tzŭ. In 1944, Dr.
Giles’ translation was edited and published in the United States in a
series of military science books. But it wasn’t until 1963 that a good
English translation (by Samuel B. Griffith and still in print) was
published that was an equal to Giles’ translation. While this
translation is more lucid than Dr. Giles’ translation, it lacks his
copious notes that make his so interesting.
Dr. Giles produced a work primarily intended for scholars of the
Chinese civilization and language. It contains the Chinese text of Sun
Tzŭ, the English translation, and voluminous notes along with numerous
footnotes. Unfortunately, some of his notes and footnotes contain
Chinese characters; some are completely Chinese. Thus, a conversion to
a Latin alphabet etext was difficult. I did the conversion in complete
ignorance of Chinese (except for what I learned while doing the
conversion). Thus, I faced the difficult task of paraphrasing it while
retaining as much of the important text as I could. Every paraphrase
represents a loss; thus I did what I could to retain as much of the
text as possible. Because the 1910 text contains a Chinese concordance,
I was able to transliterate proper names, books, and the like at the
risk of making the text more obscure. However, the text, on the whole,
is quite satisfactory for the casual reader, a transformation made
possible by conversion to an etext. However, I come away from this task
with the feeling of loss because I know that someone with a background
in Chinese can do a better job than I did; any such attempt would be
welcomed.
Bob Sutton
Preface by Lionel Giles
The seventh volume of _Mémoires concernant l’histoire, les sciences,
les arts, les mœurs, les usages, &c., des Chinois_ 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 the 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 faible, du vide 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 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). 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. This is on the whole an improvement on the other,
thought there still remains much that cannot pass 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.
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 befell the ingenious paradoxes
of George in _The Vicar of Wakefield_.
INTRODUCTION
Sun Wu and his Book
Ssu-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 your back."
Again the girls assented. The words of command having been thus
explained, he set up the halberds and battle-axes in order to begin the
drill. Then, to the sound of drums, he gave the order "Right turn." But
the girls only burst out laughing. Sun 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: "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 savor. It is our wish that they shall not be
beheaded."
Sun Tzŭ replied: "Having once received His Majesty’s commission to be
the general of his forces, there are certain commands of His Majesty
which, acting in that capacity, I am unable to accept."
Accordingly, he had the two leaders beheaded, and straightway installed
the pair next in order as leaders in their place. When this had been
done, the drum was sounded for the drill once more; and the girls went
through all the evolutions, turning to the right or to the left,
marching ahead or wheeling back, kneeling or standing, with perfect
accuracy and precision, not venturing to utter a sound. Then Sun 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 Ssu-ma Ch’ien has to tell us in
this chapter. But he proceeds to give a biography of his descendant,
Sun Pin, born about a hundred years after his famous ancestor’s death,
and also the outstanding military genius of his time. The historian
speaks of him too as Sun Tzŭ, and in his preface we read: "Sun Tzŭ had
his feet cut off and yet continued to discuss the art of war." [3] It
seems likely, then, that "Pin" was a nickname bestowed on him after his
mutilation, unless the story was invented in order to account for the
name. The crowning incident of his career, the crushing defeat of his
treacherous rival P’ang Chuan, will be found briefly related in Chapter
V. § 19, note.
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-hsu [i.e. Wu Yuan] and Po P’ei, and attacked Ch’u. He
captured the town of Shu and slew the two prince’s sons who had
formerly been generals of Wu. He was then meditating a descent on Ying
[the capital]; but the general Sun Wu said: "The army is exhausted. It
is not yet possible. We must wait"…. [After further successful
fighting,] "in the ninth year [506 B.C.], King Ho Lu addressed Wu
Tzŭ-hsu and Sun Wu, saying: "Formerly, you declared that it was not yet
possible for us to enter Ying. Is the time ripe now?" The two men
replied: "Ch’u’s general Tzŭ-ch’ang, [4] is grasping and covetous, and
the princes of T’ang and Ts’ai both have a grudge against him. If Your
Majesty has resolved to make a grand attack, you must win over T’ang
and Ts’ai, and then you may succeed." Ho Lu followed this advice, [beat
Ch’u in five pitched battles and marched into Ying.] [5]
This is the latest date at which anything is recorded of Sun Wu. He
does not appear to have survived his patron, who died from the effects
of a wound in 496. In another chapter there occurs this passage:[6]
From this time onward, a number of famous soldiers arose, one after the
other: Kao-fan, [7] who was employed by the Chin State; Wang-tzu, [8]
in the service of Ch’i; and Sun Wu, in the service of Wu. These men
developed and threw light upon the principles of war.
It is obvious enough that Ssu-ma Ch’ien at least had no doubt about the
reality of Sun Wu as an historical personage; and with one exception,
to be noticed presently, he is by far the most important authority on
the period in question. It will not be necessary, therefore, to say
much of such a work as the _Wu 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-hsu. (2) He is called
a native of Wu. (3) He had previously lived a retired life, and his
contemporaries were unaware of his ability.
The following passage occurs in the Huai-nan Tzŭ: "When sovereign and
ministers show perversity of mind, it is impossible even for a Sun Tzŭ
to encounter the foe." Assuming that this work is genuine (and hitherto
no doubt has been cast upon it), we have here the earliest direct
reference for Sun Tzŭ, for Huai-nan Tzŭ died in 122 B.C., many years
before the _Shih Chi_ was given to the world.
Liu Hsiang (80-9 B.C.) says: "The reason why Sun Tzŭ at the head of
30,000 men beat Ch’u with 200,000 is that the latter were
undisciplined."
Teng Ming-shih informs us that the surname "Sun" was bestowed on Sun
Wu’s grandfather by Duke Ching of Ch’i [547-490 B.C.]. Sun Wu’s father
Sun P’ing, rose to be a Minister of State in Ch’i, and Sun Wu himself,
whose style was Ch’ang-ch’ing, fled to Wu on account of the rebellion
which was being fomented by the kindred of T’ien Pao. He had three
sons, of whom the second, named Ming, was the father of Sun Pin.
According to this account then, Pin was the grandson of Wu, which,
considering that Sun Pin’s victory over Wei was gained in 341 B.C., may
be dismissed as chronologically impossible. Whence these data were
obtained by Teng Ming-shih I do not know, but of course no reliance
whatever can be placed in them.
An interesting document which has survived from the close of the Han
period is the short preface written by the Great Ts’ao Ts’ao, or Wei Wu
Ti, for his edition of Sun Tzŭ. I shall give it in full:—
I have heard that the ancients used bows and arrows to their advantage.
[10] The _Lun Yu_ says: “There must be a sufficiency of military
strength.” The _Shu Ching_ mentions "the army" among the "eight objects
of government." The _I Ching_ says: "‘army’ indicates firmness and
justice; the experienced leader will have good fortune." The _Shih
Ching_ says: "The King rose majestic in his wrath, and he marshalled his
troops." The Yellow Emperor, T’ang the Completer and Wu Wang all used
spears and battle-axes in order to succour their generation. The _Ssu-ma
Fa_ says: "If one man slay another of set purpose, he himself may
rightfully be slain." He who relies solely on warlike measures shall be
exterminated; he who relies solely on peaceful measures shall perish.
Instances of this are Fu Ch’ai [11] on the one hand and Yen Wang on the
other. [12] In military matters, the Sage’s rule is normally to keep
the peace, and to move his forces only when occasion requires. He will
not use armed force unless driven to it by necessity.
Many books have I read on the subject of war and fighting; but the work
composed by Sun Wu is the profoundest of them all. [Sun 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 Lu, King of Wu. Its principles were
tested on women, and he was subsequently made a general. He led an army
westwards, crushed the Ch’u state and entered Ying the capital. In the
north, he kept Ch’i and Chin in awe. A hundred years and more after his
time, Sun Pin lived. He was a descendant of Wu.] [13] In his treatment
of deliberation and planning, the importance of rapidity in taking the
field, [14] clearness of conception, and depth of design, Sun 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.
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 bibliographic section of the _Han Shu_, 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 _chuan_." It is evident that
this cannot be merely the 13 chapters known to Ssu-ma Ch’ien, or those
we possess today. Chang Shou-chieh refers to an edition of Sun Tzŭ’s
_Art of War_ of which the "13 chapters" formed the first _chuan_,
adding that there were two other _chuan_ besides. This has brought
forth a theory, that the bulk of these 82 chapters consisted of other
writings of Sun Tzŭ—we should call them apocryphal—similar to the _Wen
Ta_, of which a specimen dealing with the Nine Situations [15] is
preserved in the _T’ung Tien_, and another in Ho Shin’s commentary. It
is suggested that before his interview with Ho Lu, Sun 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-hsun, the author of the _Sun Tzŭ Hsu 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." As he points out, if the whole work was expounded on the
same scale as in the above-mentioned fragments, the total number of
chapters could not fail to be considerable. Then the numerous other
treatises attributed to Sun Tzŭ might 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-hsun thinks, that all of
these were contained in the 82 _p’ien_. Without pinning our faith to
the accuracy of details supplied by the _Wu Yüeh Ch’un Ch’iu_, or
admitting the genuineness of any of the treatises cited by Pi I-hsun,
we may see in this theory a probable solution of the mystery. Between
Ssu-ma Ch’ien and Pan Ku there was plenty of time for a luxuriant crop
of forgeries to have grown up under the magic name of Sun 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. [16]
Tu Mu’s conjecture seems to be based on a passage which states: "Wei Wu
Ti strung together Sun Wu’s _Art of War_," which in turn may have
resulted from a misunderstanding of the final words of Ts’ao King’s
preface. This, as Sun Hsing-yen points out, is only a modest way of
saying that he made an explanatory paraphrase, or in other words, wrote
a commentary on it. On the whole, this theory has met with very little
acceptance. Thus, the _Ssu K’u Ch’uan Shu_ says: "The mention of the 13
chapters in the _Shih Chi_ shows that they were in existence before the
_Han Chih_, and that latter accretions are not to be considered part of
the original work. Tu Mu’s assertion can certainly not be taken as
proof."
There is every reason to suppose, then, that the 13 chapters existed in
the time of Ssu-ma Ch’ien practically as we have them now. That the
work was then well known he tells us in so many words. "Sun 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." But as we go
further back, serious difficulties begin to arise. The salient fact
which has to be faced is that the _Tso Chuan_, the greatest
contemporary record, makes no mention whatsoever of Sun Wu, either as a
general or as a writer. It is natural, in view of this awkward
circumstance, that many scholars should not only cast doubt on the
story of Sun Wu as given in the _Shih Chi_, but even show themselves
frankly skeptical as to the existence of the man at all. The most
powerful presentment of this side of the case is to be found in the
following disposition by Yeh Shui-hsin: [17]—
It is stated in Ssu-ma Ch’ien’s history that Sun Wu was a native of the
Ch’i State, and employed by Wu; and that in the reign of Ho Lu he
crushed Ch’u, entered Ying, and was a great general. But in Tso’s
Commentary no Sun Wu appears at all. It is true that Tso’s Commentary
need not contain absolutely everything that other histories contain.
But Tso has not omitted to mention vulgar plebeians and hireling
ruffians such as Ying K’ao-shu, [18] Ts’ao Kuei, [19], Chu Chih-wu and
Chuan She-chu [20]. In the case of Sun Wu, whose fame and achievements
were so brilliant, the omission is much more glaring. Again, details
are given, in their due order, about his contemporaries Wu Yuan and the
Minister P’ei. [21] Is it credible that Sun Wu alone should have been
passed over?
In point of literary style, Sun Tzŭ’s work belongs to the same school
as _Kuan Tzŭ_, [22] _Liu T’ao_, [23] and the _Yüeh Yu_ [24] and may
have been the production of some private scholar living towards the end
of the "Spring and Autumn" or the beginning of the "Warring States"
period. [25] The story that his precepts were actually applied by the
Wu State, is merely the outcome of big talk on the part of his
followers.
From the flourishing period of the Chou dynasty [26] down to the time
of the "Spring and Autumn," all military commanders were statesmen as
well, and the class of professional generals, for conducting external
campaigns, did not then exist. It was not until the period of the "Six
States" [27] that this custom changed. Now although Wu was an
uncivilized State, it is conceivable that Tso should have left
unrecorded the fact that Sun Wu was a great general and yet held no
civil office? What we are told, therefore, about Jang-chu [28] and Sun
Wu, is not authentic matter, but the reckless fabrication of theorizing
pundits. The story of Ho Lu’s experiment on the women, in particular,
is utterly preposterous and incredible.
Yeh Shui-hsin represents Ssu-ma Ch’ien as having said that Sun Wu
crushed Ch’u and entered Ying. This is not quite correct. No doubt the
impression left on the reader’s mind is that he at least shared in
these exploits. The fact may or may not be significant; but it is
nowhere explicitly stated in the _Shih Chi_ either that Sun 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 Yuan and Po P’ei both took
part in the expedition, and also that its success was largely due to
the dash and enterprise of Fu Kai, Ho Lu’s younger brother, it is not
easy to see how yet another general could have played a very prominent
part in the same campaign.
Ch’en Chen-sun of the Sung dynasty has the note:—
Military writers look upon Sun Wu as the father of their art. But the
fact that he does not appear in the _Tso Chuan_, although he is said to
have served under Ho Lu King of Wu, makes it uncertain what period he
really belonged to.
He also says:—
The works of Sun Wu and Wu Ch’i may be of genuine antiquity.
It is noticeable that both Yeh Shui-hsin and Ch’en Chen-sun, while
rejecting the personality of Sun Wu as he figures in Ssu-ma Ch’ien’s
history, are inclined to accept the date traditionally assigned to the
work which passes under his name. The author of the _Hsu Lu_ fails to
appreciate this distinction, and consequently his bitter attack on
Ch’en Chen-sun really misses its mark. He makes one of two points,
however, which certainly tell in 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 plagiarized in subsequent
works of the Chou, Ch’in and Han dynasties." The two most shameless
offenders in this respect are Wu Ch’i and Huai-nan 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 Tseng Shen delivered the _Tso Chuan_, which had been entrusted to
him by its author. [29] Now the fact that quotations from the _Art of
War_, acknowledged or otherwise, are to be found in so many authors of
different epochs, establishes a very strong anterior to them all,—in
other words, that Sun 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 _Hsu Lu;_ and though some of the
interpretations are doubtful, the main argument is hardly affected
thereby. Again, it must not be forgotten that Yeh Shui-hsin, a scholar
and critic of the first rank, deliberately pronounces the style of the
13 chapters to belong to the early part of the fifth century. Seeing
that he is actually engaged in an attempt to disprove the existence of
Sun Wu himself, we may be sure that he would not have hesitated to
assign the work to a later date had he not honestly believed the
contrary. And it is precisely on such a point that the judgment of an
educated Chinaman will carry most weight. Other internal evidence is
not far to seek. Thus in XIII. § 1, there is an unmistakable allusion
to the ancient system of land-tenure which had already passed away by
the time of Mencius, who was anxious to see it revived in a modified
form. [30] The only warfare Sun Tzŭ knows is that carried on between
the various feudal princes, in which armored chariots play a large
part. Their use seems to have entirely died out before the end of the
Chou dynasty. He speaks as a man of Wu, a state which ceased to exist
as early as 473 B.C. On this I shall touch presently.
But once refer the work to the 5th century or earlier, and the chances
of its being other than a _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, 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 generalization, but
also of a practical soldier closely acquainted with the military
conditions of his time. To say nothing of the fact that these sayings
have been accepted and endorsed by all the greatest captains of Chinese
history, they offer a combination of freshness and sincerity, acuteness
and common sense, which quite excludes the idea that they were
artificially concocted in the study. If we admit, then, that the 13
chapters were the genuine production of a military man living towards
the end of the "_Ch’un Ch’iu_" period, are we not bound, in spite of
the silence of the _Tso Chuan_, to accept Ssu-ma Ch’ien’s account in
its entirety? In view of his high repute as a sober historian, must we
not hesitate to assume that the records he drew upon for Sun Wu’s
biography were false and untrustworthy? The answer, I fear, must be in
the negative. There is still one grave, if not fatal, objection to the
chronology involved in the story as told in the _Shih Chi_, which, so
far as I am aware, nobody has yet pointed out. There are two passages
in Sun Tzŭ in which he alludes to contemporary affairs. The first in 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-hsun. But what has
hitherto escaped notice is that they also seriously impair the
credibility of Ssu-ma Ch’ien’s narrative. As we have seen above, the
first positive date given in connection with Sun Wu is 512 B.C. He is
then spoken of as a general, acting as confidential adviser to Ho Lu,
so that his alleged introduction to that monarch had already taken
place, and of course the 13 chapters must have been written earlier
still. But at that time, and for several years after, down to the
capture of Ying in 506, Ch’u and not 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, [31] whereas the first war between Wu and Yüeh
was waged only in 510, [32] and even then was no more than a short
interlude sandwiched in the midst of the fierce struggle with Ch’u. Now
Ch’u is not mentioned in the 13 chapters at all. The natural inference
is that they were written at a time when 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 Yu-chang.
506 Ho Lu attacks Ch’u with the aid of T’ang and Ts’ai.
Decisive battle of Po-chu, and capture of Ying. Last
mention of Sun Wu in Shih Chi.
505 Yüeh makes a raid on Wu in the absence of its army. Wu
is beaten by Ch’in and evacuates Ying.
504 Ho Lu sends Fu Ch’ai to attack Ch’u.
497 Kou Chien becomes King of Yüeh.
496 Wu attacks Yüeh, but is defeated by Kou Chien at Tsui-li.
Ho Lu is killed.
494 Fu Ch’ai defeats Kou Chien in the great battle of Fu-
chaio, and enters the capital of Yüeh.
485 or 484 Kou Chien renders homage to Wu. Death of Wu Tzŭ-hsu.
482 Kou Chien invades Wu in the absence of Fu Ch’ai.
478 to 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 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. [33]
We may feel fairly certain that the author, whoever he may have been,
was not a man of any great eminence in his own day. On this point the
negative testimony of the _Tso Chuan_ far outweighs any shred of
authority still attaching to the _Shih Chi_, if once its other facts
are discredited. Sun Hsing-yen, however, makes a feeble attempt to
explain the omission of his name from the great commentary. It was Wu
Tzŭ-hsu, he says, who got all the credit of Sun Wu’s exploits, because
the latter (being an alien) was not rewarded with an office in the
State.
How then did the Sun 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 Yuan, [34] 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 the prince’s reign.
[35] If he rose to be a general at all, he certainly was never on an
equal footing with the three above mentioned. He was doubtless present
at the investment and occupation of Ying, and witnessed Wu’s sudden
collapse in the following year. 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.
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 Ssu-ma Ch’ien speaks were essentially the same
as those now extant. We have his word for it that they were widely
circulated in his day, and can only regret that he refrained from
discussing them on that account. Sun Hsing-yen says in his preface:—
During the Ch’in and Han dynasties Sun 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
the benefit of posterity. Thus it came about that Wei Wu was the first
to write a commentary on it.
As we have already seen, there is no reasonable ground to suppose that
Ts’ao Kung tampered with the text. But the text itself is often so
obscure, and the number of editions which appeared from that time
onward so great, especially during the T’ang and Sung dynasties, that
it would be surprising if numerous corruptions had not managed to creep
in. Towards the middle of the Sung period, by which time all the chief
commentaries on Sun Tzŭ were in existence, a certain Chi T’ien-pao
published a work in 15 _chuan_ entitled "Sun Tzŭ with the collected
commentaries of ten writers." There was another text, with variant
readings put forward by Chu Fu of Ta-hsing, which also had supporters
among the scholars of that period; but in the Ming editions, Sun
Hsing-yen tells us, these readings were for some reason or other no
longer put into circulation. Thus, until the end of the 18th century,
the text in sole possession of the field was one derived from Chi
T’ien-pao’s edition, although no actual copy of that important work was
known to have survived. That, therefore, is the text of Sun Tzŭ which
appears in the War section of the great Imperial encyclopedia printed
in 1726, the _Ku Chin T’u Shu Chi Ch’eng_. Another copy at my disposal
of what is practically the same text, with slight variations, is that
contained in the "Eleven philosophers of the Chou and Ch’in dynasties"
[1758]. And the Chinese printed in Capt. Calthrop’s first edition is
evidently a similar version which has filtered through Japanese
channels. So things remained until Sun Hsing-yen [1752-1818], a
distinguished antiquarian and classical scholar, who claimed to be an
actual descendant of Sun Wu, [36] accidentally discovered a copy of Chi
T’ien-pao’s long-lost work, when on a visit to the library of the
Hua-yin temple. [37] Appended to it was the _I Shuo_ of Cheng Yu-Hsien,
mentioned in the _T’ung Chih_, and also believed to have perished. This
is what Sun Hsing-yen designates as the "original edition (or text)"—a
rather misleading name, for it cannot by any means claim to set before
us the text of Sun Tzŭ in its pristine purity. Chi T’ien-pao was a
careless compiler, and appears to have been content to reproduce the
somewhat debased version current in his day, without troubling to
collate it with the earliest editions then available. Fortunately, two
versions of Sun 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 P’ing Yu
Lan_ encyclopedia. In both the complete text is to be found, though
split up into fragments, intermixed with other matter, and scattered
piecemeal over a number of different sections. Considering that the _Yu
Lan_ takes us back to the year 983, and the _T’ung Tien_ about 200
years further still, to the middle of the T’ang dynasty, the value of
these early transcripts of Sun Tzŭ can hardly be overestimated. Yet the
idea of utilizing them does not seem to have occurred to anyone until
Sun Hsing-yen, acting under Government instructions, undertook a
thorough recension of the text. This is his own account:—
Because of the numerous mistakes in the text of Sun 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 textbook for
military men.
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 Jen-shi. They took the "original
edition" as their basis, and by careful comparison with older versions,
as well as the extant commentaries and other sources of information
such as the _I Shuo_, succeeded in restoring a very large number of
doubtful passages, and turned out, on the whole, what must be accepted
as the 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 reissue dated 1877. It is in 6
_pen_, forming part of a well-printed set of 23 early philosophical
works in 83 _pen_. [38] It opens with a preface by Sun Hsing-yen
(largely quoted in this introduction), vindicating the traditional view
of Sun 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, Cheng Yu-hsien’s
_I Shuo_, [39] with author’s preface, and next, a short miscellany of
historical and bibliographical information entitled _Sun Tzŭ Hsu Lu_,
compiled by Pi I-hsun. As regards the body of the work, each separate
sentence is followed by a note on the text, if required, and then by
the various commentaries appertaining to it, arranged in chronological
order. These we shall now proceed to discuss briefly, one by one.
The Commentators
Sun Tzŭ can boast an exceptionally long 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, must therefore be susceptible of treatment in a great
variety of ways.
1. TS’AO TS’AO or Ts’ao Kung, afterwards known as Wei Wu Ti [A.D.
155-220]. There is hardly any room for doubt that the earliest
commentary on Sun Tzŭ actually came from the pen of this extraordinary
man, whose biography in the _San Kuo Chih_ reads like a romance. One of
the greatest military geniuses that the world has seen, and Napoleonic
in the scale of his operations, he was especially famed for the
marvelous rapidity of his marches, which has found expression in the
line "Talk of Ts’ao Ts’ao, and Ts’ao Ts’ao will appear." Ou-yang Hsiu
says of him that he was a great captain who "measured his strength
against Tung Cho, Lu Pu and the two Yuan, father and son, and
vanquished them all; whereupon he divided the Empire of Han with Wu and
Shu, and made himself king. It is recorded that whenever a council of
war was held by Wei on the eve of a far-reaching campaign, he had all
his calculations ready; those generals who made use of them did not
lose one battle in ten; those who ran counter to them in any particular
saw their armies incontinently beaten and put to flight." Ts’ao Kung’s
notes on Sun 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, they are scarcely
intelligible and stand no less in need of a commentary than the text
itself. [40]
2. MENG SHIH. The commentary which has come down to us under this name
is comparatively meager, and nothing about the author is known. Even
his personal name has not been recorded. Chi T’ien-pao’s edition places
him after Chia Lin, and Ch’ao Kung-wu also assigns him to the T’ang
dynasty, [41] but this is a mistake. In Sun Hsing-yen’s preface, he
appears as Meng Shih of the Liang dynasty [502-557]. Others would
identify him with Meng K’ang of the 3rd century. He is named in one
work as the last of the "Five Commentators," the others being Wei Wu
Ti, Tu Mu, Ch’en Hao and Chia Lin.
3. LI CH’UAN of the 8th century was a well-known writer on military
tactics. One of his works has been in constant use down to the present
day. The _T’ung Chih_ mentions "Lives of famous generals from the Chou
to the T’ang dynasty" as written by him. [42] According to Ch’ao
Kung-wu and the _T’ien-i-ko_ catalogue, he followed a variant of the
text of Sun Tzŭ which differs considerably from those now extant. His
notes are mostly short and to the point, and he frequently illustrates
his remarks by anecdotes from Chinese history.
4. TU YU (died 812) did not publish a separate commentary on Sun Tzŭ,
his notes being taken from the _T’ung Tien_, the encyclopedic treatise
on the Constitution which was his life-work. They are largely
repetitions of Ts’ao Kung and Meng Shih, besides which it is believed
that he drew on the ancient commentaries of Wang Ling and others. Owing
to the peculiar arrangement of _T’ung Tien_, he has to explain each
passage on its merits, apart from the context, and sometimes his own
explanation does not agree with that of Ts’ao Kung, whom he always
quotes first. Though not strictly to be reckoned as one of the "Ten
Commentators," he was added to their number by Chi T’ien-pao, being
wrongly placed after his grandson Tu Mu.
5. TU MU (803-852) is perhaps the best known as a poet—a bright star
even in the glorious galaxy of the T’ang period. We learn from Ch’ao
Kung-wu that although he had no practical experience of war, he was
extremely fond of discussing the subject, and was moreover well read in
the military history of the _Ch’un Ch’iu_ and _Chan Kuo_ eras. His
notes, therefore, are well worth attention. They are very copious, and
replete with historical parallels. The gist of Sun Tzŭ’s work is thus
summarized by him: "Practice benevolence and justice, but on the other
hand make full use of artifice and measures of expediency." He further
declared that all the military triumphs and disasters of the thousand
years which had elapsed since Sun Tzŭ’s death would, upon examination,
be found to uphold and corroborate, in every particular, the maxims
contained in his book. Tu Mu’s somewhat spiteful charge against Ts’ao
Kung has already been considered elsewhere.
6. CH’EN HAO appears to have been a contemporary of Tu Mu. Ch’ao
Kung-wu says that he was impelled to write a new commentary on Sun 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. Ou-yang Hsiu,
writing in the middle of the 11th century, calls Ts’ao Kung, Tu Mu and
Ch’en Hao the three chief commentators on Sun Tzŭ, and observes that
Ch’en Hao is continually attacking Tu Mu’s shortcomings. His
commentary, though not lacking in merit, must rank below those of his
predecessors.
7. CHIA LIN is known to have lived under the T’ang dynasty, for his
commentary on Sun Tzŭ is mentioned in the _T’ang Shu_ and was
afterwards republished by Chi Hsieh of the same dynasty together with
those of Meng Shih and Tu Yu. It is of somewhat scanty texture, and in
point of quality, too, perhaps the least valuable of the eleven.
8. MEI YAO-CH’EN (1002-1060), commonly known by his "style" as Mei
Sheng-yu, was, like Tu Mu, a poet of distinction. His commentary was
published with a laudatory preface by the great Ou-yang Hsiu, from
which we may cull the following:—
Later scholars have misread Sun Tzŭ, distorting his words and trying to
make them square with their own one-sided views. Thus, though
commentators have not been lacking, only a few have proved equal to the
task. My friend Sheng-yu has not fallen into this mistake. In
attempting to provide a critical commentary for Sun 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, [43] nor with the nine punitive measures prescribed
to the Minister of War. [44] Again, Sun Wu loved brevity of diction,
but his meaning is always deep. Whether the subject be marching an
army, or handling soldiers, or estimating the enemy, or controlling the
forces of victory, it is always systematically treated; the sayings are
bound together in strict logical sequence, though this has been
obscured by commentators who have probably failed to grasp their
meaning. In his own commentary, Mei Sheng-yu has brushed aside all the
obstinate prejudices of these critics, and has tried to bring out the
true meaning of Sun 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,
coming generations will have constant reason to thank my friend
Sheng-yu.
Making some allowance for the exuberance of friendship, I am inclined
to endorse this favourable judgment, and would certainly place him above
Ch’en Hao in order of merit.
9. WANG HSI, also of the Sung dynasty, is decidedly original in some of
his interpretations, but much less judicious than Mei Yao-ch’en, and on
the whole not a very trustworthy guide. He is fond of comparing his own
commentary with that of Ts’ao Kung, but the comparison is not often
flattering to him. We learn from Ch’ao Kung-wu that Wang Hsi revised
the ancient text of Sun Tzŭ, filling up lacunae and correcting
mistakes. [45]
10. HO YEN-HSI of the Sung dynasty. The personal name of this
commentator is given as above by Cheng Ch’iao in the _Tung Chih_,
written about the middle of the twelfth century, but he appears simply
as Ho Shih in the _Yu Hai_, and Ma Tuan-lin quotes Ch’ao Kung-wu as
saying that his personal name is unknown. There seems to be no reason
to doubt Cheng Ch’iao’s statement, otherwise I should have been
inclined to hazard a guess and identify him with one Ho Ch’u-fei, the
author of a short treatise on war, who lived in the latter part of the
11th century. Ho Shih’s commentary, in the words of the _T’ien-i-ko_
catalogue, "contains helpful additions" here and there, but is chiefly
remarkable for the copious extracts taken, in adapted form, from the
dynastic histories and other sources.
11. CHANG YU. The list closes with a commentator of no great
originality perhaps, but gifted with admirable powers of lucid
exposition. His commentator is based on that of Ts’ao Kung, whose terse
sentences he contrives to expand and develop in masterly fashion.
Without Chang Yu, it is safe to say that much of Ts’ao Kung’s
commentary would have remained cloaked in its pristine obscurity and
therefore valueless. His work is not mentioned in the Sung history, the
_T’ung K’ao_, or the _Yu Hai_, but it finds a niche in the _T’ung
Chih_, which also names him as the author of the "Lives of Famous
Generals." [46]
It is rather remarkable that the last-named four should all have
flourished within so short a space of time. Ch’ao Kung-wu accounts for
it by saying: "During the early years of the Sung dynasty the Empire
enjoyed a long spell of peace, and men ceased to practice the art of
war. but when [Chao] Yuan-hao’s rebellion came [1038-42] and the
frontier generals were defeated time after time, the Court made
strenuous inquiry for men skilled in war, and military topics became
the vogue amongst all the high officials. Hence it is that the
commentators of Sun Tzŭ in our dynasty belong mainly to that period.
[47]
Besides these eleven commentators, there are several others whose work
has not come down to us. The _Sui Shu_ mentions four, namely Wang Ling
(often quoted by Tu Yu as Wang Tzŭ); Chang Tzŭ-shang; Chia Hsu of Wei;
[48] and Shen Yu of Wu. The _T’ang Shu_ adds Sun Hao, and the _T’ung
Chih_ Hsiao Chi, while the _T’u Shu_ mentions a Ming commentator, Huang
Jun-yu. It is possible that some of these may have been merely
collectors and editors of other commentaries, like Chi T’ien-pao and
Chi Hsieh, mentioned above.
Appreciations of Sun 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_. 196
B.C.), [49] Feng I (_d_. 34 A.D.), [50] Lu Meng (_d_. 219), [51] and Yo
Fei (1103-1141). [52] The opinion of Ts’ao Kung, who disputes with Han
Hsin the highest place in Chinese military annals, has already been
recorded. [53] Still more remarkable, in one way, is the testimony of
purely literary men, such as Su Hsun (the father of Su Tung-p’o), who
wrote several essays on military topics, all of which owe their chief
inspiration to Sun Tzŭ. The following short passage by him is preserved
in the _Yu Hai:_ [54]—
Sun Wu’s saying, that in war one cannot make certain of conquering,
[55] is very different indeed from what other books tell us. [56] Wu
Ch’i was a man of the same stamp as Sun Wu: they both wrote books on
war, and they are linked together in popular speech as "Sun and Wu."
But Wu Ch’i’s remarks on war are less weighty, his rules are rougher
and more crudely stated, and there is not the same unity of plan as in
Sun Tzŭ’s work, where the style is terse, but the meaning fully brought
out.
The following is an extract from the "Impartial Judgments in the Garden
of Literature" by Cheng Hou:—
Sun 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
Yu_, the _I Ching_ and the great Commentary, [57] as well as the
writings of Mencius, Hsun K’uang and Yang Chu, all fall below the level
of Sun Tzŭ.
Chu Hsi, commenting on this, fully admits the first part of the
criticism, although he dislikes the audacious comparison with the
venerated classical works. Language of this sort, he says, "encourages
a ruler’s bent towards unrelenting warfare and reckless militarism."
Apologies for War
Accustomed as we are to think of China as the greatest peace-loving
nation on earth, we are in some danger of forgetting that her
experience of war in all its phases has also been such as no modern
State can parallel. Her long military annals stretch back to a point at
which they are lost in the mists of time. She had built the Great Wall
and was maintaining a huge standing army along her frontier centuries
before the first Roman legionary was seen on the Danube. What with the
perpetual collisions of the ancient feudal States, the grim conflicts
with Huns, Turks and other invaders after the centralization of
government, the terrific upheavals which accompanied the overthrow of
so many dynasties, besides the countless rebellions and minor
disturbances that have flamed up and flickered out again one by one, it
is hardly too much to say that the clash of arms has never ceased to
resound in one portion or another of the Empire.
No less remarkable is the succession of illustrious captains to whom
China can point with pride. As in all countries, the greatest are fond
of emerging at the most fateful crises of her history. Thus, Po Ch’i
stands out conspicuous in the period when Ch’in was entering upon her
final struggle with the remaining independent states. The stormy years
which followed the break-up of the Ch’in dynasty are illuminated by the
transcendent genius of Han Hsin. When the House of Han in turn is
tottering to its fall, the great and baleful figure of Ts’ao Ts’ao
dominates the scene. And in the establishment of the T’ang dynasty, one
of the mightiest tasks achieved by man, the superhuman energy of Li
Shih-min (afterwards the Emperor T’ai Tsung) was seconded by the
brilliant strategy of Li Ching. None of these generals need fear
comparison with the greatest names in the military history of Europe.
In spite of all this, the great body of Chinese sentiment, from Lao 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 defending warfare on principle, that I have thought it worth
while to collect and translate a few passages in which the unorthodox
view is upheld. The following, by Ssu-ma Ch’ien, shows that for all his
ardent admiration of Confucius, he was yet no advocate of peace at any
price:—
Military weapons are the means used by the Sage to punish violence and
cruelty, to give peace to troublous times, to remove difficulties and
dangers, and to 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 "civilization," 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. [58]
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
disciples of Confucius. Nowadays, the holding of trials and hearing of
litigation, the imprisonment of offenders and their execution by
flogging in the market-place, are all done by officials. But the
wielding of huge armies, the throwing down of fortified cities, the
hauling of women and children into captivity, and the beheading of
traitors—this is also work which is done by officials. The objects of
the rack and of military weapons are essentially the same. There is no
intrinsic difference between the punishment of flogging and cutting off
heads in war. For the lesser infractions of law, which are easily dealt
with, only a small amount of force need be employed: hence the use of
military weapons and wholesale decapitation. In both cases, however,
the end in view is to get rid of wicked people, and to give comfort and
relief to the good….
Chi-sun asked Jan Yu, saying: "Have you, Sir, acquired your military
aptitude by study, or is it innate?" Jan Yu replied: "It has been
acquired by study." [59] "How can that be so," said Chi-sun, "seeing
that you are a disciple of Confucius?" "It is a fact," replied Jan Yu;
"I was taught by Confucius. It is fitting that the great Sage should
exercise both civil and military functions, though to be sure my
instruction in the art of fighting has not yet gone very far."
Now, who the author was of this rigid distinction between the "civil"
and the "military," and the limitation of each to a separate sphere of
action, or in what year of which dynasty it was first introduced, is
more than I can say. But, at any rate, it has come about that the
members of the governing class are quite afraid of enlarging on
military topics, or do so only in a shamefaced manner. If any are bold
enough to discuss the subject, they are at once set down as eccentric
individuals of coarse and brutal propensities. This is an extraordinary
instance in which, through sheer lack of reasoning, men unhappily lose
sight of fundamental principles.
When the Duke of Chou was minister under Ch’eng Wang, he regulated
ceremonies and made music, and venerated the arts of scholarship and
learning; yet when the barbarians of the River Huai revolted, [60] he
sallied forth and chastised them. When Confucius held office under the
Duke of Lu, and a meeting was convened at Chia-ku, [61] he said: "If
pacific negotiations are in progress, warlike preparations should have
been made beforehand." He rebuked and shamed the Marquis of Ch’i, who
cowered under him and dared not proceed to violence. How can it be said
that these two great Sages had no knowledge of military matters?
We have seen that the great Chu Hsi held Sun 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." [62] Replying to
K’ung Wen-tzu, he said: I have not been instructed about buff-coats and
weapons." But if we turn to the meeting at Chia-ku, we find that he
used armed force against the men of Lai, so that the marquis of Ch’i
was overawed. Again, when the inhabitants of Pi revolted; he ordered
his officers to attack them, whereupon they were defeated and fled in
confusion. He once uttered the words: "If I fight, I conquer." [63] And
Jan Yu also said: "The Sage exercises both civil and military
functions." [64] Can it be a fact that Confucius never studied or
received instruction in the art of war? We can only say that he did not
specially choose matters connected with armies and fighting to be the
subject of his teaching.
Sun Hsing-yen, the editor of Sun Tzŭ, writes in similar strain:—
Confucius said: "I am unversed in military matters." [65] He also said:
"If I fight, I conquer." Confucius ordered ceremonies and regulated
music. Now war constitutes one of the five classes of State ceremonial,
[66] and must not be treated as an independent branch of study. Hence,
the words "I am unversed in" must be taken to mean that there are
things which even an inspired Teacher does not know. Those who have to
lead an army and devise stratagems, must learn the art of war. But if
one can command the services of a good general like Sun Tzŭ, who was
employed by Wu Tzŭ-hsu, there is no need to learn it oneself. Hence the
remark added by Confucius: "If I fight, I conquer."
The men of the present day, however, willfully interpret these words of
Confucius in their narrowest sense, as though he meant that books on
the art of war were not worth reading. With blind persistency, they
adduce the example of Chao Kua, who pored over his father’s books to no
purpose, [67] as a proof that all military theory is useless. Again,
seeing that books on war have to do with such things as opportunism in
designing plans, and the conversion of spies, they hold that the art is
immoral and unworthy of a sage. These people ignore the fact that the
studies of our scholars and the civil administration of our officials
also require steady application and practice before efficiency is
reached. The ancients were particularly chary of allowing mere novices
to botch their work. [68] Weapons are baneful [69] and fighting
perilous; and useless unless a general is in constant practice, he
ought not to hazard other men’s lives in battle. [70] Hence it is
essential that Sun Tzŭ’s 13 chapters should be studied.
Hsiang Liang used to instruct his nephew Chi [71] in the art of war.
Chi got a rough idea of the art in its general bearings, but would not
pursue his studies to their proper outcome, the consequence being that
he was finally defeated and overthrown. He did not realize that the
tricks and artifices of war are beyond verbal computation. Duke Hsiang
of Sung and King Yen of Hsu were brought to destruction by their
misplaced humanity. The treacherous and underhand nature of war
necessitates the use of guile and stratagem suited to the occasion.
There is a case on record of Confucius himself having violated an
extorted oath, [72] and also of his having left the Sung State in
disguise. [73] Can we then recklessly arraign Sun Tzŭ for disregarding
truth and honesty?
Bibliography
The following are the oldest Chinese treatises on war, after Sun Tzŭ.
The notes on each have been drawn principally from the _Ssu k’u ch’uan
shu chien ming mu lu_, ch. 9, fol. 22 sqq.
1. _Wu Tzŭ_, in 1 _chuan_ or 6 chapters. By Wu Ch’i (_d_. 381 B.C.). A
genuine work. See _Shih Chi_, ch. 65.
2. _Ssu-ma Fa_, in 1 _chuan_ or 5 chapters. Wrongly attributed to
Ssu-ma Jang-chu of the 6th century B.C. Its date, however, must be
early, as the customs of the three ancient dynasties are constantly to
be met within its pages. See _Shih Chi_, ch. 64.
The _Ssu K’u Ch’uan Shu_ (ch. 99, f. 1) remarks that the oldest three
treatises on war, _Sun Tzŭ_, _Wu Tzŭ_ and _Ssu-ma Fa_, are, generally
speaking, only concerned with things strictly military—the art of
producing, collecting, training and drilling troops, and the correct
theory with regard to measures of expediency, laying plans, transport
of goods and the handling of soldiers—in strong contrast to later
works, in which the science of war is usually blended with metaphysics,
divination and magical arts in general.
3. _Liu T’ao_, in 6 _chuan_, or 60 chapters. Attributed to Lu Wang (or
Lu Shang, also known as T’ai Kung) of the 12th century B.C. [74] But
its style does not belong to the era of the Three Dynasties. Lu Te-ming
(550-625 A.D.) mentions the work, and enumerates the headings of the
six sections so that the forgery cannot have been later than Sui
dynasty.
4. _Wei Liao Tzŭ_, in 5 _chuan_. Attributed to Wei Liao (4th cent.
B.C.), who studied under the famous Kuei-ku Tzŭ. The work appears to
have been originally in 31 chapters, whereas the text we possess
contains only 24. Its matter is sound enough in the main, though the
strategical devices differ considerably from those of the Warring
States period. It is been furnished with a commentary by the well-known
Sung philosopher Chang Tsai.
5. _San Lueh_ in 3 _chuan_. Attributed to Huang-shih Kung, a legendary
personage who is said to have bestowed it on Chang Liang (_d_. 187
B.C.) in an interview on a bridge. But here again, the style is not
that of works dating from the Ch’in or Han period. The Han Emperor
Kuang Wu [25-57 A.D.] apparently quotes from it in one of his
proclamations; but the passage in question may have been inserted later
on, in order to prove the genuineness of the work. We shall not be far
out if we refer it to the Northern Sung period [420-478 A.D.], or
somewhat earlier.
6. _Li Wei Kung Wen Tui_, in 3 sections. Written in the form of a
dialogue between T’ai Tsung and his great general Li Ching, it is
usually ascribed to the latter. Competent authorities consider it a
forgery, though the author was evidently well versed in the art of war.
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 _Ssu K’u
Ch’uan Shu_.
8. _Wu Ch’i Ching_, in 1 _chuan_. Attributed to the legendary minister
Feng Hou, with exegetical notes by Kung-sun Hung of the Han dynasty
(_d_. 121 B.C.), and said to have been eulogized by the celebrated
general Ma Lung (_d_. 300 A.D.). Yet the earliest mention of it is in
the _Sung Chih_. Although a forgery, the work is well put together.
Considering the high popular estimation in which Chu-ko Liang has
always been held, it is not surprising to find more than one work on
war ascribed to his pen. Such are (1) the _Shih Liu Ts’e_ (1 _chuan_),
preserved in the _Yung Lo Ta Tien;_ (2) _Chiang Yuan_ (1 _chuan_); and
(3) _Hsin Shu_ (1 _chuan_), which steals wholesale from Sun Tzŭ. None
of these has the slightest claim to be considered genuine.
Most of the large Chinese encyclopedias contain extensive sections
devoted to the literature of war. The following references may be found
useful:—
_T’ung Tien_ (circa 800 A.D.), ch. 148-162.
_T’ai P’ing Yu Lan_ (983), ch. 270-359.
_Wen Hsien Tung K’ao_ (13th cent.), ch. 221.
_Yu Hai_ (13th cent.), ch. 140, 141.
_San Ts’ai T’u Hui_ (16th cent).
_Kuang Po Wu Chih_ (1607), ch. 31, 32.
_Ch’ien Ch’io Lei Shu_ (1632), ch. 75.
_Yuan Chien Lei Han_ (1710), ch. 206-229.
_Ku Chin T’u Shu Chi Ch’eng_ (1726), section XXX, esp. ch. 81-90.
_Hsu Wen Hsien T’ung K’ao_ (1784), ch. 121-134.
_Huang Ch’ao Ching Shih Wen Pien_ (1826), ch. 76, 77.
The bibliographical sections of certain historical works also deserve
mention:—
_Ch’ien Han Shu_, ch. 30.
_Sui Shu_, ch. 32-35.
_Chiu T’ang Shu_, ch. 46, 47.
_Hsin T’ang Shu_, ch. 57,60.
_Sung Shih_, ch. 202-209.
_T’ung Chih_ (circa 1150), ch. 68.
To these of course must be added the great Catalogue of the Imperial
Library:—
_Ssu K’u Ch’uan Shu Tsung Mu T’i Yao_ (1790), ch. 99, 100.
Footnotes
1. _Shih Chi_, ch. 65.
2. He reigned from 514 to 496 B.C.
3. _Shih Chi_, ch. 130.
4. The appellation of Nang Wa.
5. _Shih Chi_, ch. 31.
6. _Shih Chi_, ch. 25.
7. The appellation of Hu Yen, mentioned in ch. 39 under the year 637.
8. Wang-tzu Ch’eng-fu, ch. 32, year 607.
9. The mistake is natural enough. Native critics refer to a work of the
Han dynasty, which says: "Ten _li_ outside the _Wu_ gate [of the city
of Wu, now Soochow in Kiangsu] there is a great mound, raised to
commemorate the entertainment of Sun Wu of Ch’i, who excelled in the
art of war, by the King of Wu."
10. "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."
11. 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.
12. King Yen of Hsu, a fabulous being, of whom Sun Hsing-yen says in
his preface: "His humanity brought him to destruction."
13. The passage I have put in brackets is omitted in the _T’u Shu_, and
may be an interpolation. It was known, however to Chang Shou-chieh of
the T’ang dynasty, and appears in the _T’ai P’ing Yu Lan_.
14. Ts’ao Kung seems to be thinking of the first part of chap. II,
perhaps especially of § 8.
15. See chap. XI.
16. On the other hand, it is noteworthy that _Wu Tzŭ_, which is not in
6 chapters, has 48 assigned to it in the _Han Chih_. Likewise, the
_Chung Yung_ is credited with 49 chapters, though now only in one only.
In the case of very short works, one is tempted to think that _p’ien_
might simply mean "leaves."
17. Yeh Shih of the Sung dynasty [1151-1223].
18. He hardly deserves to be bracketed with assassins.
19. See Chapter 7, § 27 and Chapter 11, § 28.
20. See Chapter 11, § 28. Chuan Chu is the abbreviated form of his
name.
21. I.e. Po P’ei. See ante.
22. The nucleus of this work is probably genuine, though large
additions have been made by later hands. Kuan chung died in 645 B.C.
23. See infra, beginning of INTRODUCTION.
24. I do not know what this work, unless it be the last chapter of
another work. Why that chapter should be singled out, however, is not
clear.
25. About 480 B.C.
26. That is, I suppose, the age of Wu Wang and Chou Kung.
27. In the 3rd century B.C.
28. Ssu-ma Jang-chu, whose family name was T’ien, lived in the latter
half of the 6th century B.C., and is also believed to have written a
work on war. See _Shih Chi_, ch. 64, and infra at the beginning of the
INTRODUCTION.
29. 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.
30. See _Mencius_ III. 1. iii. 13-20.
31. 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 537, the _Tso Chuan_ in 601.
32. This is explicitly stated in the _Tso Chuan_, XXXII, 2.
33. 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.
34. With Wu Yuan himself the case is just the reverse:—a spurious
treatise on war has been fathered on him simply because he was a great
general. Here we have an obvious inducement to forgery. Sun Wu, on the
other hand, cannot have been widely known to fame in the 5th century.
35. From _Tso Chuan:_ "From the date of King Chao’s accession [515]
there was no year in which Ch’u was not attacked by Wu."
36. 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!"
37. Hoa-yin is about 14 miles from T’ung-kuan on the eastern border of
Shensi. The temple in question is still visited by those about the
ascent of the Western Sacred Mountain. It is mentioned in a text as
being "situated five _li_ east of the district city of Hua-yin. The
temple contains the Hua-shan tablet inscribed by the T’ang Emperor
Hsuan Tsung [713-755]."
38. See my "Catalogue of Chinese Books" (Luzac & Co., 1908), no. 40.
39. This is a discussion of 29 difficult passages in Sun Tzŭ.
40. Cf. Catalogue of the library of Fan family at Ningpo: "His
commentary is frequently obscure; it furnishes a clue, but does not
fully develop the meaning."
41. _Wen Hsien T’ung K’ao_, ch. 221.
42. 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.
43. 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 organization had practically gone by the
board. I can suggest no other explanation of the passage.
44. See _Chou Li_, xxix. 6-10.
45. _T’ung K’ao_, ch. 221.
46. This appears to be still extant. See Wylie’s "Notes," p. 91 (new
edition).
47. _T’ung K’ao_, loc. cit.
48. A notable person in his day. His biography is given in the _San Kuo
Chih_, ch. 10.
49. See XI. § 58, note.
50. _Hou Han Shu_, ch. 17 ad init.
51. _San Kuo Chih_, ch. 54.
52. _Sung Shih_, ch. 365 ad init.
53. 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 [in Chapter VIII] is one that
the people of this country would do well to take to heart."
54. Ch. 140.
55. See IV. § 3.
56. The allusion may be to Mencius VI. 2. ix. 2.
57. The _Tso Chuan_.
58. _Shih Chi_, ch. 25, fol. I.
59. Cf. _Shih Chi_, ch 47.
60. See _Shu Ching_, preface § 55.
61. See _Shih Chi_, ch. 47.
62. _Lun Yu_, XV. 1.
63. I failed to trace this utterance.
64. Supra.
65. Supra.
66. The other four being worship, mourning, entertainment of guests,
and festive rites. See _Shu Ching_, ii. 1. III. 8, and _Chou Li_, IX.
fol. 49.
67. See XIII. § 11, note.
68. This is a rather obscure allusion to the _Tso Chuan_, where
Tzŭ-ch’an says: "If you have a piece of beautiful brocade, you will not
employ a mere learner to make it up."
69. Cf. _Tao Te Ching_, ch. 31.
70. Sun Hsing-yen might have quoted Confucius again. See _Lun Yu_,
XIII. 29, 30.
71. Better known as Hsiang Yu [233-202 B.C.].
72. _Shih Chi_, ch. 47.
73. _Shih Chi_, ch. 38.
74. See XIII. § 27, note. Further details on T’ai Kung will be found in
the _Shih Chi_, ch. 32 ad init. Besides the tradition which makes him a
former minister of Chou Hsin, two other accounts of him are there
given, according to which he would appear to have been first raised
from a humble private station by Wen Wang.
Chapter I. LAYING PLANS
[Ts’ao Kung, in defining the meaning of the Chinese for the title of
this chapter, 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. 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.
4. These are: (1) The Moral Law; (2) Heaven; (3) Earth; (4) The
Commander; (5) Method and discipline.
[It appears from what follows that Sun Tzŭ means by "Moral Law" 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.]
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.
[Tu Yu quotes Wang Tzŭ 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."]
7. _Heaven_ signifies night and day, cold and heat, times and seasons.
[The commentators, I think, make an unnecessary mystery of two words
here. Meng Shih refers to "the hard and the soft, waxing and waning" of
Heaven. 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.]
8. _Earth_ comprises distances, great and small; danger and security;
open ground and narrow passes; the chances of life and death.
9. _The Commander_ stands for the virtues of wisdom, sincerity,
benevolence, courage and strictness.
[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
"wisdom" and "sincerity" are put before "humanity or benevolence," and
the two military virtues of "courage" and "strictness" substituted for
"uprightness of mind" and "self-respect, self-control, or ‘proper
feeling.’"]
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.
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:—
13. (1) Which of the two sovereigns is imbued with the Moral law?
[I.e., "is in harmony with his subjects." Cf. § 5.]
(2) Which of the two generals has most ability?
(3) With whom lie the advantages derived from Heaven and Earth?
[See §§ 7, 8]
(4) On which side is discipline most rigorously enforced?
[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."]
(5) Which army is the stronger?
[Morally as well as physically. As Mei Yao-ch’en puts it, freely
rendered, "_esprit de corps_ and ‘big battalions.’"]
(6) On which side are officers and men more highly trained?
[Tu Yu quotes Wang Tzŭ 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."]
(7) In which army is there the greater constancy both in reward and
punishment?
[On which side is there the most absolute certainty that merit will be
properly rewarded and misdeeds summarily punished?]
14. By means of these seven considerations I can forecast victory or
defeat.
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!
[The form of this paragraph reminds us that Sun Tzŭ’s treatise was
composed expressly for the benefit of his patron Ho Lu, king of the Wu
State.]
16. While heeding the profit of my counsel, avail yourself also of any
helpful circumstances over and beyond the ordinary rules.
17. According as circumstances are favourable, one should modify one’s
plans.
[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 Yu 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 tomorrow—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?" [1] ]
18. All warfare is based on deception.
[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."]
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.
[All commentators, except Chang Yu, say, "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.]
21. If he is secure at all points, be prepared for him. If he is in
superior strength, evade him.
22. If your opponent is of choleric temper, seek to irritate him.
Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant.
[Wang Tzŭ, quoted by Tu Yu, 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.]
23. If he is taking his ease, give him no rest.
[This is probably the meaning though Mei Yao-ch’en has the note: "while
we are taking our ease, wait for the enemy to tire himself out." The
_Yu Lan_ has "Lure him on and tire him out."]
If his forces are united, separate them.
[Less plausible is the interpretation favoured by most of the
commentators: "If sovereign and subject are in accord, put division
between them."]
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.
26. Now the general who wins a battle makes many calculations in his
temple ere the battle is fought.
[Chang Yu 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.]
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.
[1] "Words on Wellington," by Sir. W. Fraser.