Sun Tzu on the art of war - To^n Tu+? Binh Pha'p (2)
hyt...@my-deja.com
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 First Published in 1910.
The Text of Sun Tzu
I have found it difficult to glean much about the history of Sun Tzu'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 i t 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 Tzu's ART OF WAR was
in general use amongst militar y 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 S ung 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 Tzu were in existence, a certain Chi T`ien-pao
published a work in 15 C HUAN entitled "Sun Tzu 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 Tzu which appe ars 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 Cho u 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 b elieved 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 Tzu 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 Tzu, even older than the newly discovered work, were
still e xtant, 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 y ears further still, to
the middle of the T`ang dynasty, the value of these early transcripts
of Sun Tzu 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 inst ructions, undertook a thorough recension of the
text.
This is his own account: -- Because of the numerous mistakes in the
text of Sun Tzu 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 th roughout. 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 mili tary men.
The three individuals here referred to had evidently been occupied on
the text of Sun Tzu 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, app eared 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 closes approximation we are ever likely to get to Sun Tzu's
original work. This is what will hereafter be denominated the "sta
ndard 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 t he traditional view of Sun
Tzu's life and performances, and summing up in remarkably concise
fashion the evidence in its favor. This is followed by Ts`ao Kung's
preface to his edition, and the biography of Sun Tzu from the SHIH CHI,
both translated abov e. 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 TZU HSU LU, compiled by Pi
I-hsun. As regards the body of the work, each separate sent ence 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 Tzu can boast an exceptionally long distinguished roll of
commentators, which would do honor 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 artif ices of war, being
inexhaustible, must therefore be susceptible of treatment in a great
variety of ways.
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 Tzu actually came from the pen of this extraordinary man, whose
biography in the SAN KUO CHIH reads li ke 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, an d 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; hereupon he divided the Empire of Han with Wu and
Shu, and made himself king. It is record ed 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 armi es incontinently beaten and put to flight." Ts`ao Kung's
notes on Sun Tzu, 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 LITTERATEUR .
Sometimes, indeed, owing to extreme compression, they are scarcely
intelligible and stand no less in need of a commentary than the text
itself. [40]
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 ommentators," the others being Wei Wu Ti, Tu Mu, Ch`en Hao
and Chia Lin.
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
Tzu which differs considerably from those now extant. His notes are
mostly short and to the point, and he frequently illustrates his
remarks by anecdo tes from Chinese history.
TU YU (died 812) did not publish a separate commentary on Sun Tzu, 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, beside s 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 agr ee 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.
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 Tzu'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 Tzu'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.
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 Tzu 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 an d 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 Tzu, 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.
CHIA LIN is known to have lived under the T`ang dynasty, for his
commentary on Sun Tzu 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 scan ty texture, and in point of
quality, too, perhaps the least valuable of the eleven.
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 sch olars have misread Sun
Tzu, 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 th is mistake. In attempting to provide a critical commentary for
Sun Tzu's work, he does not lose sight of he fact that these sayings
were intended for states engaged in internecine warfare; that the
author is not concerned with the military conditio ns 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 Tzu
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
favorable judgment, and would certainly place him above Ch`en Hao in
order of merit.
WANG HIS, 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 K ung, 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 Tzu, filling up lacunae and correcting
mistakes. [45]
HO YEN-HIS 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 dynasti c histories
and other sources.
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 master ly 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 find s 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 off icials. Hence it is that the
commentators of Sun Tzu 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 Tzu); Chang Tzu-shang; Chia Hsu of Wei;
[48] and Shen Yu of Wu. The T`ANG SHU add s 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 Tzu
Sun Tzu 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 Tzu. The following short passage by h im 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 Tzu's work, where the style is t erse, but the meaning
fully brought out.
The following is an extract from the "Impartial Judgments in the Garden
of Literature" by Cheng Hou: -- Sun Tzu'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 o f 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 be low the level of Sun Tzu.
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 reckle ss 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 bac k 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 C h`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 Tzu
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 unc ommon 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
orthodox 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 succor 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? T hey will surely bring our
country to impotence and dishonor 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 modif y 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.
Al l 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
Tzu: -- 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 hol ding 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 chil dren 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 am ount 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 an d 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 an d 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 Tzu 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, the 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 Tzu, 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 ar my and devise stratagems, must learn the art of
war. But if one can command the services of a good general like Sun
Tzu, who was employed by Wu Tzu-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 ove r 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 m ere 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 Tzu's 13 chapters shoul d 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 g uile 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 Tzu for disregarding
truth and honesty?
Sun Tzu Bibliography
The following are the oldest Chinese treatises on war, after Sun Tzu.
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.
WU TZU, in 1 CHUAN or 6 chapters. By Wu Ch`i (d. 381 B.C.). A genuine
work. See SHIH CHI, ch. 65.
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. Th e SSU K`U CH`UAN SHU (ch. 99, f. 1)
remarks that the oldest three treatises on war, SUN TZU, WU TZU and SSU-
MA FA, are, generally speaking, only concerned with things strictly
military -- the art of producing, collecting, training and drilling
troop s, 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.
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 en umerates the headings of the
six sections so that the forgery cannot have been later than Sui
dynasty.
WEI LIAO TZU, in 5 CHUAN. Attributed to Wei Liao (4th cent. B.C.), who
studied under the famous Kuei-ku Tzu. 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 m ain, 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.
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 No rthern Sung period [420-478 A.D.], or somewhat earlier.
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 i n the art of war.
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.
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 ment ion 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 Tzu. 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.
Sun Tzu - Footnotes
SHI CHI, ch. 65.
He reigned from 514 to 496 B.C.
SHI CHI, ch. 130.
The appellation of Nang Wa.
SHI CHI, ch. 31.
SHI CHI, ch. 25.
The appellation of Hu Yen, mentioned in ch. 39 under the year 637.
Wang-tzu Ch`eng-fu, ch. 32, year 607.
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." -- "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."
The son and successor of Ho Lu. He was finally defeated and overthrown
by Kou chien, King of Yueh, in 473 B.C. See post.
King Yen of Hsu, a fabulous being, of whom Sun Hsing-yen says in his
preface: "His humanity brought him to destruction."
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.
Ts`ao Kung seems to be thinking of the first part of chap. II, perhaps
especially of ss. 8.
See chap. XI.
On the other hand, it is noteworthy that WU TZU, 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 tempte d to think that P`IEN might
simply mean "leaves."
Yeh Shih of the Sung dynasty [1151-1223].
He hardly deserves to be bracketed with assassins.
See Chapter 7, ss. 27 and Chapter 11, ss. 28.
See Chapter 11, ss. 28. Chuan Chu is the abbreviated form of his name.
I.e. Po P`ei. See ante.
The nucleus of this work is probably genuine, though large additions
have been made by later hands. Kuan chung died in 645 BC.
See infra, beginning of INTRODUCTION.
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.
About 480 B.C.
That is, I suppose, the age of Wu Wang and Chou Kung.
In the 3rd century BC.
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.
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.
See MENCIUS III. 1. iii. 13-20.
When Wu first appears in the CH`UN CH`IU in 584, it is already at
variance with its powerful neighbor. The CH`UN CH`IU first mentions
Yueh in 537, the TSO CHUAN in 601.
This is explicitly stated in the TSO CHUAN, XXXII, 2.
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. ss. 30.
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.
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."
Preface ad fin: "My family comes from Lo-an, and we are really
descended from Sun Tzu. 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 enjoyin g the blessings of
peace!"
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 ci ty of Hua-yin. The
temple contains the Hua-shan tablet inscribed by the T`ang Emperor
Hsuan Tsung [713-755]."
See my "Catalogue of Chinese Books" (Luzac & Co., 1908), no. 40.
This is a discussion of 29 difficult passages in Sun Tzu.
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."
WEN HSIEN T`UNG K`AO, ch. 221.
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.
The Hsia, the Shang and the Chou. Although the last-named was nominally
existent in Sun Tzu'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.
See CHOU LI, xxix. 6-10.
T`UNG K`AO, ch. 221.
This appears to be still extant. See Wylie's "Notes," p. 91 (new
edition).
T`UNG K`AO, loc. cit.
A notable person in his day. His biography is given in the SAN KUO
CHIH, ch. 10.
See XI. ss. 58, note.
HOU HAN SHU, ch. 17 ad init.
SAN KUO CHIH, ch. 54.
SUNG SHIH, ch. 365 ad init.
The few Europeans who have yet had an opportunity of acquainting
themselves with Sun Tzu 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 w ork 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."
Ch.. 140.
See IV. ss. 3.
The allusion may be to Mencius VI. 2. ix. 2.
The TSO CHUAN.
SHIH CHI, ch. 25, fol. I.
Cf. SHIH CHI, ch 47.
See SHU CHING, preface ss. 55.
See SHIH CHI, ch. 47.
Lun Yu, XV. 1.
I failed to trace this utterance.
Supra.
Supra.
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.
See XIII. ss. 11, note.
This is a rather obscure allusion to the TSO CHUAN, where Tzu-ch`an
says: "If you have a piece of beautiful brocade, you will not employ a
mere learner to make it up."
Cf. TAO TE CHING, ch. 31.
Sun Hsing-yen might have quoted Confucius again. See LUN YU, XIII. 29,
30.
Better known as Hsiang Yu [233-202 B.C.].
SHIH CHI, ch. 47.
SHIH CHI, ch. 38.
See XIII. ss. 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 t o have been first raised
from a humble private station by Wen Wang.
(con tinued)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.