Sun Tzu on the Art of War PDF

This is a reproduction of a library book that was digitized by Google as part of an ongoing effort to preserve the information in books and make it universally accessible. https://books.google.com UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA LIBRARY X030339883 University of Virginia Libraries P. Flondin Toro ,aqTV 930 F Sun Tzů 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 & MSS. in the British Museum. - 33 LONDON LUZAC & Cº. 1910 :.... in ALD 人 || || 138 1920 PRINTED BY E. J. BBILL, LEYDEN (Holland ). Co mp brother Captain Valentine Giles, R. C. in the hope that a work 2400 pears old map pet contain leggong worth consideration bp the goldier of to-dap this translation ig affectionateip dedicated CONTENTS Page PREFACE..................... Vil INTRODUCTION Sun Wu and his Book............... Xi The Text of Sun Tzů....................... XXX · · · · · · · ·....... The Commentators................. XXXIV Appreciations of Sun Tzů............. xlii · Apologies for war................. xliii Bibliography................... 1 Chap. I. Laying Plans............... I , II. Waging War................ 9............ · · » III. Attack by Stratagem............. 17 · · · · · · · · · · · ·.. IV. Tactical Dispositions..... · · · · · · · · · ·..... V. Energy............ VI. Weak Points and Strong.............. VII, Manoeuvring....... VIII. Variation of Tactics..... IX. The Army on the March........ X. Terrain......... Ιοο XI. The Nine Situations...... , II4 · · · · „ XII. The Attack by Fire... , XIII. The Use of Spies.............. 160 CHINESE CONCORDANCE............... 176 INDEX...................... 192 PREFACE The seventh volume of “Mémoires concernant l'histoire, les sciences , les arts, les meurs , les usages, & c., des Chinois” l 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 trans lation of Sun Tzů , 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 Tzů did not write , and very little indeed of what he did. Here is a fair speci men , 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'oc casion 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 cufs. De vous à l'ennemi il ne doit y avoir d'autre différence que celle du fort au foible, du vuide 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 wonder ful development in the study of Chinese literature, no translator ventured to tackle Sun Tzů, although his work was known to be highly valued in China as by far the | Published at Paris in 1782. VIII PREFACE 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 Tzů). 1 Unfortunately, it was evident that the translator's know ledge of Chinese was far too scanty to fit him to grapple with the manifold difficulties of Sun Tzů. 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 trans lations from Chinese. From blemishes of this nature, at least, I believe that the present translation is free. It was vas not undertaken out of any inflated estimate of my own powers ; but I could not help feeling that Sun Tzů 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 predeces sors. 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 refer ring to his earlier edition. In the subsequent chapters I have of course transferred my attention to the second edition. This is on the whole an improvement on the other, though there still remains much that cannot pass 1 A rather distressing Japanese flavour pervades the work throughout. Thus, King Ho Lu masquerades as “ Katsuryo,” Wu and Yüeh become “Go” and “ Etsu ," etc. etc. PREFACE IX 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 com mentators” on Sun Tzů (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 now e m 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 Tzů 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 inass of native commentary my aim has been to extract the cream only , adding the Chinese text here and there when it seemned to present points of literary interest. Though constituting in itself an important branch of Chinese literature, very little com mentary of this kind has hitherto been made directly acces sible by translation. 1 1 A notable exception is to be found in Biot's edition of the Chou Li. PREFACE 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, how ever, 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 trans lations,” would not, I must confess, be altogether unwel come. For, after all, the worst fate I shall have to dread is that which befel the ingenious paradoxes of George in The Vicar of Wakefield. INTRODUCTION Sun WU AND HIS Book. Ssů -ma Ch'ien gives the following biography of Sun Tzů : 1 F Tit Sun Tzu Wu was a native of the Ch'i State. His Art of War brought him to the notice of Ho Lu, King of the Wu. Ho Lu said to him : I have carefully perused your 13 chapters, May I submit your theory ofmanaging 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 Tzů divided them into two companies, and placed one of the King's favourite concubines at the head of each. He then bade them all take spears in their hands, and addressed them thus : I presume you know the difference between front and back , right hand and left hand ? — The girls replied : Yes. — Sun Tzŭ went on : When I say “ Eyes front,” you must look straight ahead. When I say “ Left turn,” you must face towards your left hand. When I say “ Right turn," you must face towards your right hand. When I say “ About turn,” you must face right round towards the back. – Again the girls assented. The words of command having been thus ex -- plained, he set up the halberds and battle -axes in order to begin the drill. Then , to the sound of drums, he gave the order “ Right turn.” But the girls only burst out laughing. Sun Tzŭ said : If words of command are not clear and distinct, if orders are not thoroughly understood, then the general is to blame. — So he started drilling them again , and this time gave the order “ Left turn ," whereupon the girls once more burst into fits of laughter. Sun Tzŭ said : If words of command are not clear and distinct, if orders are not thoroughly understood, the general is to blame. But if his orders are clear, and the soldiers nevertheless disobey, then it is the fault of their officers, --- So saying, he ordered the leaders of the two companies to be beheaded. Now the King of Wu was watching the 1 Shih Chi, ch. 65. 2 Also written in Ho Lü. He reigned from 514 to 496 B.C. XII INTRODUCTION scene from the top of a raised pavilion ; and when he saw that his fa vourite concubines were about to be executed , he was greatly alarmed and hurriedly sent down the following message: We are now quite satis fied as to our general's ability to handle troops. If We are bereft of these two concubines, our meat and drink will lose their savour. It is our wish that they shall not be beheaded. — Sun Tzú replied : Having once received His Majesty 's commission to be general of his forces, there are certain commands of His Majesty which , acting in that capacity , I am unable to accept. – Accordingly, he had the two leaders beheaded, and straightway installed the pair next in order as leaders in their place. When this had been done, the drum was sounded for the drill oncemore ; 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 in spection. 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. — There upon Sun Tzŭ said : The King is only fond of words, and cannot trans late them into deeds. — After that, Ho Lu saw that Sun Tzŭ was one who knew how to handle an army, and finally appointed himn 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 Tzů shared in the might of the King. About Sun Tzủ himself this is all that Ssů -ma Ch ‘ien has to tell us in this chapter. But he proceeds to give a biography of his descendant, 7 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 Tzů , and in his preface we read : B F E “ Sun Tzů had his feet cut off and yet continued to discuss the art of war." 1 It seems likely , then , that “ Pin ” was a nickname bestowed on him after his mutilation , unless indeed the story was invented in order to account for the name. The crowning incident of his career, the crushing defeat of his treacherous rival Pang Chuan , will be found briefly related on p. 40. Shih Chi, ch. 130 , f. 6 rº, INTRODUCTION XIII To return to the elder Sun Tzů. 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 withF T zu-hsü [i.e. Il Wu Yuan) and Po Prei, 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 of Wu addressed Wu Tzů -hsü and Sun Wu, saying: " Formerly , you declared that it was not yet possible for us to enter Ying. Is the time ripe now ?" The two men replied : " Chʻu’s general,F T zů -ch ‘ang, 3 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 ]. 4 This is the latest date at which anything is recorded of Sun Wu. He does not appear to have survived his patron, who died from the effects of a wound in 496. In the chapter entitled # (the earlier portion of which M. Chavannes believes to be a fragment of a treatise on Military Weapons), there occurs this passage:5 From this time onward , a number of famous soldiers arose , one after the other: JL Kao-fan, who was employed by the Chin State; Wang-tzů , ' 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 ( * ). 1 I note that M. Chavannes translates “ le peuple est épuisé.” But in Sun Tzu 's own book (see especially VII SS 24 — 26) the ordinary meaning of is Warmy,” and this, I think, is more suitable here.. 2 These words are given also in Wu Tzú -hsü ’s biography, ch. 66, fol. 3 rº. 3 The appellation of Nang Wa. 4 Shih Chi, ch. 31, fol. 6 rº. 5 Ibid. ch. 25, fol. 1 20... 8. The appellation of DK Hu Yen, mentioned in ch. 39 under the year 637. Wang-tzů Chíêng-fu, ch. 32 , year 607. XIV INTRODUCTION It is obvious that Ssů-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 # FX 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 doubt ful; but even if it were otherwise , his account would be of little value, based as it is on the Shih Chi and ex panded 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 Tzů was first recommended to Ho Lu by Wu Tzů-hsü. 2) He is called a native of Wu. 3) He had previously lived a retired life, and his contemporaries were unaware of his ability. 2 The following passage occurs in F Huai-nan Tzů : “ When sovereign and ministers show perversity of mind, it is impossible even for a Sun Tzů to encounter the foe.” 3 Assuming that this work is genuine (and hitherto no doubt has been cast upon it), we have here the earliest direct reference to Sun Tzů, for Huai-nan Tzů died in 122 B.C., ma many years before the Shih Chi was given to the world. Á Liu Hsiang ( B.C. 80 - 9) in his says: “ The reason why Sun Wu at the head of 30 ,000 men beat 1 The mistake is natural enough. Native critics refer to the a work of the Han dynasty, which says (ch. 2, fol. 3 20 of my edition) : 19 外大家吳王客齊孫武家也去縣十里善為兵 “ 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.” 孫子者吳人也善為兵法辟幽居世人莫知 # * # E TE Ú N * F * !D tik. INTRODUCTION XV Ch'u with 200,000 is that the latter were undisciplined.” 1 Têng Ming-shih in his kE # (com pleted in 1134) informs us that the surname De was be stowed on Sun Wu's grandfather by Duke Ching of Ch'i (547 –490 B.C.]. Sun Wu's father Sun E Ping, rose to be a Minister of State in Ch 'i, and Sun Wu him self, whose style was Ch ang-ch'ing, fled to Wu on account of the rebellion which was being fomented by the kindred of the 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 wasas gained in 341 B. C., may be dismissed as chronologically impossible. Whence these data were ob tained by Têng Ming-shih I do not know , but of course no reliance whatever can be placed in them. An interesting document which has survived from the close of the Han period is the short preface written by the great for Ts'ao Ts'ao, or Wei Wu Ti, for his edition of Sun Tzů. I shall give it in full : -. I have heard that the ancients used bows and arrows to their advan tage. 3 The Lun Yü says : “ There must be a sufficiency of military strength.” 4 The Shu Ching mentions “ the army” among the “ eight objects of government.” 5 The I Ching says : “ Biti 'army? indicates firmness and justice ; the experienced leader will have good fortune.” 6 I i Ebbe to t heE U. 2 The Shih Chi, on the other hand, says: Dan He. I may remark in passing that the name it for one who was a great warrior is just as suspicious as | for a man who had his feet cut off. 3 An allusion to * , *. II. 2: B A R BA KIt han 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.”. XII. 7. * V. iv. 7. o , 7th diagram ( Bili). XVI INTRODUCTION The Shih Ching says : “ The King rose majestic in his wrath, and he marshalled his troops." | The Yellow Emperor, Tang the Completer and Wu Wang all used spears and battle-axes in order to succour their generation. The Ssi -ma Fa says: “ If one man slay another of set pur pose, 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 ? on the one hand and Yen Wang on the other. * 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. 5 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 Tzů was a native of the Ch‘i state, his personal name was Wu. He wrote the Art of War in 13 chapters for Ho Lü, King of Wu. Its principles were tested on women , and he was subsequently made a general. He led an army westwards, crushed the Ch'u State and entered Ying the capital. In the north , he kept Ch 'i and Chin in awe. A hundred years and more after his time, Sun Pin lived. He was a descendant of Wu]. 6 In his treatment of deliberation and planning, the importance of rapidity in taking the field , ? clearness of conception, and depth of design , Sun i *K III. I. vii. 5. 2D i ch. 1 (E X ) ad init. The text of the passage in the 圖書 Tu Stu(我政典 , ch. 85 ) is:是故殺人安人殺 Ź a te. 3 The son and successor of Ho Lu. He was finally defeated and overthrown by A PEKou Chien, King of Yüeh , in 473 B.C. See post. 4 King Yen ofP s ü , a fabulous being, of whom Sun Hsing-yen says in his preface : E T K «His humanity brought him to destruction.” See Shih Chi, ch. 5, f. 1vc, and M. Chavannes' note, Mémoires Historiques, tom. II, p. 8. o I"u Shu , ibid. ch. 90 : tie E i 5 4 Ź FJA 日足兵尚書八政日師易日師丈人吉詩日 I K TEX tik # #F F D E Ź AJ U to vote 传文者亡夫差偃王是也聖人之用兵戰而時 * ET Ź. 6. The passage I have put in brackets is omitted in the T 'u Shu, and may be hang Shou-chieh of an interpolation. It was known, however, to be + ti CChang f 1 Ts'ao Kung seems to be thinkin 'ai pri the Tſang dynasty, and appears in the T 'ai P'ing Yü Lan. be thinking of the first part of chap. II, perhaps especially of § 8. INTRODUCTION XVII Tzů 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. 1 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. S15, in which it seems clear that some ruler is addressed. In the bibliographical section of the Han Shu , ” there is an entry which has given rise to much discussion : 吳孫子八十二篇圖九卷 “ The works of Sun Tzi of Wu in 82 p'ien (or chapters), with diagrams in 9 chian.” It is evident that this cannot be merely the 13 chapters known to Ssú -ma Ch‘ien , or those we possess to -day. Chang Shou-chieh in his L refers to an edition of Sun Tzu's 兵法 of which the “13 chapters” formed the first chian , adding that there were two other chian besides. 3 This has brought forth a theory, that the bulk of these 82 chapters consisted of other writings of Sun Tzů – we should call them apocryphal — similar to the 問答 Wean Ta, of which a specimen dealing with the Nine Situations 4 is preserved in the m Tung Tien , and another in Ho Shih 's commentary. It is suggested 「吾觀兵書戰策多矣孫武所著深矣孫子者齊人也名武為吳王圈圈作兵法一十三篇試之婦人卒以為將西破强楚入郢北威齊晉後百歲餘有孫臏是武之後也審計重舉明畫深圖不可相而但世人未之深亮訓說況文煩富行於世者失其旨要故撰為略解焉 , : 漢書藝文志、兵權謀 , | 3 The 藝文志 mentions two editionsof Sun Tzi in 3 chian,namely 孫武孫子 and 朱服校定孫子 , 4 See chap. XI. XVIII INTRODUCTION that before his interview with Ho Lu, Sun Tzů 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. En Pi l-hsün, author of the F F F Sun Tzŭ Hsü Lu , backs this up with a quotation from the Wu Yüeh Ch'un Ch'iu : “ The King of Wu summoned Sun Tzů , 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 W him." 1 As he points out, if the whole work was ex pounded on the same scale as in the above-mentioned nents , the total number of chapters could not fail to be considerable. 2 Then the numerous other treatises at tributed to Sun Tzů : might also be included. The fact that the Han Chih mentions no work of Sun Tzů except the 82 p ' ien , whereas the Sui and T 'ang bibliographies give the titles of others in addition to the “ 13 chapters,” is good proof, Pi I-hsün thinks, that all of these were contained in the 82 pʻien. Without pinning our faith to the accuracy of details supplied by the Wu Yüeh Ch'un Ch'iu , or admitting the genuineness of any of the treatises cited by Pi I-hsün , we may see in this theory a probable solution of the mystery. Between Ssů-ma Ch'ien and Pan Ku there was plenty of time for a luxuriant crop of for geries to have grown up under the magic name of Sun Tzů , and the 82 pʻien may very well represent a collected edition of these lumped together with the original work. I FEX Ito Ź i | 按此皆釋九地篇義辭意甚詳故其篇快不 WE * Et 3 Such as the B E , quoted in Chêng Hsüan's commentary on the Chat Lin the戰關大甲兵法 and兵法雜占 , mentioned in theBest Sui Chih, and the = + = K , in the Hsin T'ang Chih. INTRODUCTION XIX It is also possible , though less likely , that some of them existed in the time of the earlier historian and were pur posely ignored by him. 1 Tu Mu, after Ts'ao Kung the most important commen tator on Sun Tzů , composed the preface to his edition ? about the middle of the ninth century. After a somewhat lengthy defence of the military art, 3 he comes at last to Sun Tzů himself, and makes one or two very startling assertions: — « The writings of Sun Wu," he says, “ originally as comprised several hundred thousand words, but Ts'ao Ts'ao , the Emperor Wu Wei, pruned away all redundancies and wrote out the essence of the whole, so as to form a single book in 13 chapters." 4 He goes on to remark that Ts'ao Ts'ao' s commentary on Sun Tzŭ leaves a certain proportion of difficulties unexplained. This , in Tu Mu's opinion , does not necessarily imply that he was unable to furnish a com plete commentary. ; According to the Wei Chih , Ts'ao himself wrote a book on war in something over 100 ,000 words, known as the r 1. It appears to have been of such exceptional merit that he suspects Ts'ao to have used for it the surplus material which he had found in Sun Tzů. He concludes, however, by saying : “ The Hsin Shu is now lost, so that the truth cannot be known for certain." 6 Tu Mu's conjecture seems eel to be based on a passage ! On the other hand, it is noteworthy that F Wu Tzů , which is now in 6 chapters, has 48 assigned to it in the Han Chih. Likewise, the # Chung Yung is credited with 49 chapters, though now in one only. In the case of such very short works, one is tempted to think that might simplymean “ leaves.” ? See Tu Shu, * , ch. 442, 2. 3 An extract will be found on p. xlv. * - 武所著書凡數十萬言曹魏武帝其繁剩筆其精切几十三篇成為一編 : 其所為注解十不釋一此蓋非曹不能盡. 予尋魏志見曹自作兵書十餘萬言諸將 XX INTRODUCTION in the 漢官解話 “ Wei Wu Tistrung together Sun Wu's Art of War," 1 which in turn may have resulted from a misunderstanding of the final words of Ts'ao Kung's preface: 故撰為略解焉 : This , as Sun Hsing-yen points out, is only a modest way of saying that he made an explana tory paraphrase, 3 or in other words, wrote a commentary on it. On the whole , the theory has met with very little acceptance. Thus, the 四庫全書 says: “The mention of the 13 chapters in the Shih Chi shows that they were in existence before the Han Chih , and that later accretions are not to be considered part of the original work. Tu Mu' s assertion can certainly not be taken as proof.” 5 There is every reason to suppose , then , that the 13 chapters existed in the time of Ssů-ma Ch‘ien practically as we have them now now.. That the work was then well known he tells us in so many words: “ Sun Tzů 's 13 01 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 then are widely distributed , so I will a not discuss them here.” 6 But as we go further back , serious difficulties begin to arise. The salient fact which has to be faced is that the Tso Chuan , the great con temporary record, makes no mention whatever of Sun 征戰皆以新書從事從令者克捷違教者賀敗意曹自於新書中馳驟其說自成一家事業不欲隨孫武後盡解其書不然者曹其不能耶今新書已亡不可復知, 「魏氏瑣連孫武之法, 2se 孫子兵法序 |3謙言解其略, + Ch. 99, fol. 5 rº. 然史稱十三篇在漢志之前不得以後來附益者為本書牧之言未可以為據也. e Shih Chi ch.65ad fin :世俗所稱師旅皆道孫子十三篇吴起兵法世多有故弗論. INTRODUCTION XXI Wu, either as a general or as a writer. It is natural, in view of this awkward circumstance, that many scholars should not only cast doubt on the story of Sun Wu as given in the Shih Chi, but even show themselves frankly sceptical as to the existence of the man at all. The most powerful presentment of this side of the case is to be found in the following disquisition by # * Yeh Shui-hsin : 1 It is stated in Ssă -ma Ch‘ien 's history that Sun Wu was a native of the Ch'i State , and employed by Wu ; and that in the reign of Ho Lü he crushed Ch 'u , entered Ying, and was a great general. But in Tso 's Commentary no Sun Wu appears at all. It is true that Tso's Commen tary need not contain absolutely everything that other histories contain. But I'so has not omitted to mention vulgar plebeians and hireling ruf fians such as Ying K ‘ao-shu, " Ts'ao Kuei, 3 Chu Chih -wu 4 and Chuan Shê-chu. 5 In the case of Sun Wu, whose fame and achievements were so brilliant, the omission is much more glaring. Again , details are given , in their due order, about his contemporaries Wu Yüan and the Minister P 'ei. Is it credible that Sun Wu alone should have been passed over? ? In point of literary style, Sun Tzủ's work belongs to the same school as Kuan Tzů , ' the Liu T 'ao, 9 and the Yüeh Yü, 10 and may have i Yeh Shih of the Sung dynasty (1151 — 1223]. See e l a ch. 221, f. 7, 8. 2 See Tso Chuan ,B A , I. 3 ad fin. and XI. 3 ad init. He hardly deserves to be bracketed with assassins. 3 See pp. 66, 128. 4 See Tso Chuan , , XXX. 5. 5 See p. 128. Chuan Chu is the abbreviated form of his name. 6 1. e. Po Pei. See ante. 1遷載孫武齊人而用於吳在圈圈時破楚入郢為大将按左氏無孫武他書所有左氏不必盡有然穎考叔曹劇燭之武轉設諾之流微贱暴用事左氏未嘗潰而武功名章如此乃更關又同時伍員宰一一銓次乃獨不 B. 8 The nucleus of this work is probably genuine, though large additions have been made by later hands. Kuan Chung died in 645 B. C. 9 See infra, p. l. 10 I do not know what work this is, unless it be the last chapter of the plan. Why that chapter should be singled out, however, is not clear. XXII INTRODUCTION been the production of some private scholar living towards the end of the “ Spring and Autumn" or the beginning of the “ Warring States” period. ' 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. 2 From the flourishing period of the Chou dynasty 3 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” y that this custom changed. Now although Wu was an uncivilised State, is it conceivable that Tso should have left unrecorded the fact that Sun Wu was a great general and yet held no civil office ? What we are told , therefore, about Jang-chü 5 and Sun Wu, is not authentic matter, but the reckless fabrication of theorising pundits. The story of Ho Lü's ex periment on the women , in particular, is utterly preposterous and in credible. 6 1. Yeh Shui-hsin represents Ssa - ma Ch'ien as having said that Sun Wu crushed Ch ' u and entered Ying. This is not quite correct. No doubt the impression left on the reader's mind is that he at least shared in these exploits ; but the actual subject of the verbs 破 , 入 , 威 and 顯 is certainly X , as is shown by the next words: 孫子與有力焉. 7 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 | About 480 B. C. 2 詳味孫子與管子六韜越語相出入春秋末戰國初山林處士所為其言得用於吳者其徒夸大之說也. 3 That is, I suppose , the age of Wu Wang and Chou Kung. 4 In the 3rd century B. C. 5 Ssa- ma Jang- chi, whose family name was 田 Tien, 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 , p. 1. 自周之盛至春秋凡將兵者必與聞國政未有特將於外者六國時此制始改吳雖蠻夷而孫武為大將乃不為命而左氏無傳焉可乎故凡謂穰苴孫武者皆辯士安相標指非事實其言圈圈試以婦人尤為奇險不足信 , Chi on p. xii. See the end of the passage quoted from the Shih INTRODUCTION XXIII the taking of Ying, or that he even went there at all. en 1 Moreover, as we know that Wu Yüan and Po P'ei both took part in the expedition , and also that its success was largely due to the dash and enterprise of # # 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. WE HE E Ch ên Chên-sun of the Sung dynasty has the note : 1 Military writers look upon Sun Wu as the father of their art. But the fact that he does not appear in the Tso Chuan, although he is said to have served under Ho Lü King of Wu, makes it uncertain what period he really belonged to. 2 He also says : — The works of Sun Wu and Wu Ch'i may be of genuine antiquity. 3 It is noticeable that both Yeh Shui-hsin and Ch 'ên Chên -sun , while rejecting the personality of Sun Wu as he figures in Ssů-ma Ch‘ien 's history, are inclined to ac cept the date traditionally assigned to the work which passes under his name. The author of the Hsü Lu fails to appreciate this distinction , and consequently his bitter attack on Ch 'ên Chên -sun really misses its mark. He makes one or two points , however, which certainly tell in favour of the high antiquity of our “ 13 chapters." “ Sun Tzů ," he says, “must have lived in the age of Ching Wang (519 - 476 ), because he is frequently plagiarised in subsequent works of the Chou, Ch'in and Han dynasties." 4 ' In the evento , a classified catalogue of his family library. 2 See Wên Hsien Tang Kao, ch. 221, f. 9 rº: + 2 = E k mu * 武然孫武事吳闖間而不見於左傳不知果何 of. 3 See Hsü Lu, f. 14 rº:. - 按孫子生於敬王之代故周秦兩漢諸書皆 P Here is a list of the passages in Sun Tzu from which XXIV INTRODUCTION The two most shameless offenders in this respect are Wu Ch 'i and Huai-nan Tzů, both of them important historical personages in their day. The former lived only a century after the alleged date of Sun Tzů , and his death is known to have taken place in 381 B. C. It was to him , according to Liu Hsiang , that the Tseng Shên delivered the Tso Chuan , which had been entrusted to him by its author. 1 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 probability that there was some common source anterior to them all, — in other words, that Sun Tzů 's treatise was already in existence towards the end of the 5th century B. C. Further proof of Sun Tzů ’s antiquity is furnished by the archaic or wholly obsolete meanings attaching to a number es. of the words he uses. A list of these , which might perhaps be extended, is given in the Hsü 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 either the substance or the actual words have been appropriated by early authors : VII. 9 ; IX. 17 ; I. 24 ( El Bl ). IX. 23; IX. 1, 3, 7 ; V. 1; III. 18 ; XI. 58; VII. 31; VII. 24 ; VII. 26 ; IX. 15; IX. 4 (bis) ( + ). III. 8 ; IV. 7 ( W F ) VII. 19 ; V. 14; III 2 ( F ). 111.8 ; XI.2; I. 19;XI. 58; X. 10 & VI. 1 ( lt. Two of the above are given as quotations). V. 13 ; IV. 2 ( ). IX. 11, 12; XI. 30 ; I. 13 ; VII. 19 & IV. 7; VII.32; VII. 25 ; IV. 20 & V. 23 ; IX. 43; V. 15 ; VII. 26; V. 4 & XI. 39; VIII. 11; VI. 4 (WE F ). V. 4 ( # K ). II. 20 ; X. 14 ( * ). 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. % The instances quoted are: – III. 14, 15 : H is said to be equivalent to : 11. 15: E = ; VII. 28: = 1 ; XI. 60: = 1 ; XI. 24 : the use of 9 ) instead of 5) (the later form ); XI. 64: Frisk = Y ; IX. 3: k = true ; III. 11: and Bagi antithetically opposed in the sense offe fe and Et; XI. 56 : 1L = T) ; XI. 31: to =. INTRODUCTION XXV 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 abready passed away by the time of Mencius, who was anxious to see it revived in a modified form. The only warfare Sun Tzŭ knows is that carried on between the various feudal princes ( ), in which armoured 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 pro duction 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 parti cularly 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 an La other after reading the maxims of Sun Tzů , 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 gene ralisation , but also of a practical soldier closely acquainted with the military conditions of his time. To say nothing 1 See Mencius III. 1. iii. 13 — 20. 2 t l I need not be pressed to mean an actual dweller in the mountains. I think it simply denotes a person living a retired life and standing aloof from public affairs. XXVI INTRODUCTION 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 , acute ness 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 pro an duction of a military mman 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 Ssů -ma Ch‘ien ' s ac count 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 VV 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 Tzů in which he alludes to conternporary affairs. The first is 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 l-hsün. But what has hitherto escaped 'notice is that they also seriously impair the cre dibility of Ssů-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, INTRODUCTION XXVII 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, whereas the first war between Wu and Yüeh was waged only in 510 , ? 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. Wu makes a successful attack on Yüeh. This is the first war be tween the two states. 509 or Ch'u invades Wu, but is signally defeated at the Yü-chang. 508 506 Ho Lu attacks Ch‘u with the aid of T'ang and Ts'ai. Decisive battle oft Po-chü, 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. 1 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. 2 This is explicitly stated in the Tso Chuan, P. 2 XXXII, 2:T H thel ka $15 te. XXVIII INTRODUCTION B.C. 494 Fu Ch'ai defeats Kou Chien in the great battle of the Fu-chiao, and enters the capital of Yüeh. 485 or > Kou Chien renders homage to Wu. Death of Wu Tzů-hsü. 484 482 Kou Chien invades Wu in the absence of Fu Ch'ai. 478 476 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. § 2 i 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 been 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. 1 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 1 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. INTRODUCTION XXIX the great commentary. It was Wu Tzů -hsü , 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. 1 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 un ams doubtedly 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, ? Po P'ei and Fu Kai? It is obvious that any attempt to reconstruct even the outline of Sun Tzů '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 that prince's reign. % If he rose to be a general at all, ar he certainly was never onL an equal footing with the three 1 See his preface to Sun Tzů : - 1 Bed ź the F # bt 2 With Wu Yüan 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. 3 See Tso Chuan, , 4th year(506),§ 14: P E ED ELITE * Bit « From the date of King Chao's accession there was no year in which Chíu was not attacked by Wu." XXX INTRODUCTION above mentioned. He was doubtless present at the in vestment 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 W 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. 111. 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 Tzů. I have found it difficult to glean much about the history of Sun Tzů 's text. The quotations that occur in early authors go to show that the “ 13 chapters” of which Ssů 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. I Sun Hsing -yen says in his preface : - During the Ch'in and Han dynasties Sun Tzü '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 1 See supra, p. xx. INTRODUCTION XXXI 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 i Chi T 'ien -pao published a work in 15 chüan entitled + F “ Sun Tzů with the collected commentaries of ten writers.” ? There was another text, with variant readings put forward by Chu Fu of Ta-hsing , 3.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 pos session of the field was one derived from Chi T ‘ien-pao's SA was edition , although no actual copy of that important work was known to have surrived. That, therefore, is the text of Sun Tzů which appears in the War section of the great Imperial encyclopaedia printed in 1726, the 4 E * in Ku Chin T ' u Shu Chi Chêng. Another copy at my disposal of what is practically the same text, with slight variations, is that contained in the H - F “ Eleven philosophers of the Chou and Ch'in dynasties” * HE * BLUETO ÈTUT N u ha en Ź. 2See 宋藝文志 , 3 Alluded to on p. xvii, note 3. * Loc. cit.: A r tist # # # * WEL XXXII INTRODUCTION (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 B T Sun Hsing-yen ( 1752– 1818), a distinguished antiquarian and classical scholar, 1 who claimed to be an actual descendant of Sun Wu, ? accidentally discovered a copy of Chi T ‘ien-pao's long-lost work , when on a visit to the library of the 4 Hua-yin temple. 3 Appended to it was the ti I Shuo of Chêng Yu-hsien , mentioned in the T 'ung Chih , and also believed to have perished. * This is what Sun Hsing-yen designates as the or # " original edition (or text)” – a rather misleading name, for it cannot by any means claim to set before us the text of Sun Tzů 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 1 A good biographical notice, with a list of his works, will be found in the Pour ch. 48, fol. 18 sqq. ? Preface ad fin.: # F Ź te belle # 讀書考証文字不通方略亦享承平之福者 r He “My family comes from Lo-an , and we are really descended from Sun Tzů. 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!” 3 Hua-yin is about 14 miles from hi T‘ung-kuan on the eastern border of Shensi. The temple in question is still visited by those about to make the ascent of the L or Western Sacred Mountain. It is mentioned in the t o - Mat ( A.D. 1461), ch. 32, f. 22, as the Du :- # # B B i j W T “Situated five li east of the district city of Hua-yin. The temple contains the Hua-shan tablet in scribed by the T'ang Emperor Hsüan Tsung [713 — 755].” · 最予游關中讀華陰嶽廟道藏見有此書後 1 $ UE - 5 Cf. Sun Hsing-yen's remark à propos of his mistakes in the names and order of the commentators: the Ź to t t FT. INTRODUCTION XXXIII with the earliest editions then available. Fortunately, two versions of Sun Tzú , 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 Ping Yü Lan encyclo paedia. 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 Yüi Lan takes us back to the year 983, and the Trung 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 utilising them does not seem to have oc curred to anyone until Sun Hsing -yen, acting under Govern ment 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 theancient 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 them selves to this study, probably surpassing me therein. Accordingly , I have had the whole work cut on blocks as a text-book for military men. " The three individuals here referred to had evidently been occupied on the text of Sun Tzů 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 Jên -chi. They took the " original text” as their basis, and by careful comparison with the older versions, as well as the extant commentaries and other sources of information such as 「國家令甲以孫子校士所傳本或多錯謬當用古本是正其文適吳念湖太守畢恬溪孝廉皆為此學所得或過于予遂刊一編以課武士. XXXIV INTRODUCTION the I Shuo, su succeeded cce in restoring a very large number V 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 Tzů 's original work. This is what will hereafter be denominated the “ standard text.” The copy which I have used belongs to a re-issue dated 1877. It is in 6 pên , forming part of a well-printed set of 23 early philosophical works in 83 pên. " It opens with a preface by Sun Hsing-yen (largely quoted in this intro duction), vindicating the traditional view of Sun Tzu's life and performances, and summing up in remarkably concise C 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, Chêng Yu-hsien's I Shuo,” with author 's preface, and next, a short miscellany of historical and bibliographical information entitled to Ft to Sun Tză Hsü Lu , compiled by Ea Pi l-hsün. 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 Tzů can boast an exceptionally long and distinguished roll of commentators, which would do honour to any classic. WE B 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 in 1 See my “ Catalogue of Chinese Books” (Luzac & Co., 1908), no. 40. 2 This is a discussion of 29 difficult passages in Sun Tzů , namely : I. 2 ; 26 ; 16 ; II. 9 & 10 ; III. 3 ; III & VII; III. 17 ; IV. 4 ; 6 ; V. 3 ; 10 & 11; 14 ; the headings of the 13 chapters, with special reference to chap. VII; VII. 5 ; 15 & 16 ; 27; 33 , & c.; VIII. 1 -6 ; IX. 11; X. 1 -20 ; XI. 23 ; 31 ; 19 ; 43; VII. 12– 14 & XI. 52 ; XI. 56 ; XIII. 15 & 16 ; 26 ; XIII in general. INTRODUCTION XXXV exhaustible, must therefore be susceptible of treatment in a great variety of ways. ? 1. Ts'ao Ts'ao or VÀ 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 Tzů actually came from the pen of this extra ordinary man, whose biography in the San Kuo Chih ? CS 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 marvellous rapidity of his marches, which has found expression in the line Who le « 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, Lü Pu and the two Yüan , 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 - TE 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." 3 Ts‘ao Kung's notes on Sun Tzů , models of austere brevity, are so thoroughly charac teristic of the stern commander known to history, that it C is hard indeed to conceive of them as the work of a mere littérateur. Sometimes, indeed , owing to extreme com 1 Preface to Mei Yao-ch’ên's edition: F ti t Ź ! 本於兵兵之術非一而以不窮為奇宜其說者 Ź Pt. 2 See , ch. 1. 3 Loc. cit.: ok t W ERAVANI 呂諸袁角其力而勝之姿與吳蜀分漢而王傳魏之將出兵千里每坐計勝敗授其成算諸将用之十不失一一有違者兵敗北, XXXVI INTRODUCTION pression, they are scarcely intelligible and stand no less in need of a commentary than the text itself. As we have seen , Ts'ao Kung is the reputed author of the # a book on war in 100,000 odd words, now lost, but mentioned in th 2. Æ Mêng Shih. The commentary which has come down to us under this name is comparatively meagre, 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 a T Ch'ao Kung-wu also assigns him to the T'ang dynasty,3 but this is obviously a mistake, as his work is mentioned in the t. In Sun Hsing-yen 's preface, he appears as Mêng Shih of the Liang dynasty (502- 557). Others would identify him with Mêng K 'ang of the 3rd century. In the # he is named last of the tit “ Five Commentators,” the others being Wei Wu Ti, Tu Mu, Ch 'ên Hao and Chia Lin. 3. Li Ch‘üan of the gth century was a well known writer on military tactics. His * É BE KK has been in constant use down to the present day. The initi mentions # F (lives of famous generals from the Chou to the T 'ang dynasty) as written by him. “ He is also generally supposed to be the realauthor of the popular Taoist tract, the 4 *. According to Ch 'ao Kung-wu and the T 'ien -z-ko catalogue, 6 he followed the tz text of Sun Tzů, which differs considerably from those ? Cf. - W e Catalogue of the library of the Ye Fan family at Ningpo, Ft , fol. 12 vº: * El TT * “ His commentary is frequently obscure ; it furnishes a clue, but does not fully develop the meaning." ? See Ti , ch. 141 ad init. | 3 Wên Hsien Tºwng Kao, ch. 221, f. 9 °. + Ch. 207, f. 5 rº. 5 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. 6 Loc. cit. INTRODUCTION XXXVII now extant. His notes are mostly short and to the point, and he frequently illustrates his remarks by anecdotes from Chinese history. 4. tt Hi Tu Yu (died 812) did not publish a separate commentary on Sun Tzů, his notes being taken from the T 'ung Tien , the encyclopaedic treatise on the Constitution which was his life-work. They are largely repetitions of Ts'ao Kung and Mêng Shih , besides which it is believed that he drew on the ancient commentaries of E Wang Ling and others. Owing to the peculiar arrangement of the 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. RL # Tu Mu (803–852) is perhaps 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 more over well read in the military history of the Ch'un Ch' iu and Chan Kuo eras. 1 His notes, therefore , are well worth attention. They are very copious, and replete with historical parallels. The gist of Sun Tzů 's work is thus summarised by him : “ Practise benevolence and justice, but on the other hand make full use of artifice and measures of ex pediency." ? He further declared that all the military 1 Wên Hsien T"ung K 'ao, ch. 221, f. 9 :th e whole 兵欲試而不得者其學能道春秋戰國時事甚 to mi * 2 Preface to his commentary (T "u Shu, * # # , ch. 442): it Ź FIT 論大約用仁義使機權也 , XXXVIII INTRODUCTION triumphs and disasters of the thousand years which had elapsed since Sun Wu's death would , upon examination , be found to uphold and corroborate, in every particular , the maxims contained in his book. 1 Tu Mu' s somewhat spiteful charge against Ts'ao Kung has already been con sidered elsewhere. 6. Ch’ên Hao appears to have been a contemp orary of Tu Mu. Ch 'ao Kung-wu says that he was im pelled to write a new commentary on Sun Tzů 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 'ên Hao the three chief commentators on Sun Tzŭ ( # ), and observes that Ch 'ên Hao is continually attacking Tu Mu's short comings. 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 men tioned in thel a nd was afterwards republished by Le Chi Hsieh of the same dynasty together with those of Mêng Shih and Tu Yu. 3 It is of somewhat scanty texture, and in point of quality , too , perhaps the least valuable of the eleven. 8. t # E Mei Yao -ch 'ên (1002 – 1060 ), commonly known by his " style ” as Mei Shëng-yü , was, like Tu Mu, a poet of distinction. His commentary was pub lished with a laudatory preface by the great Ou-yang Hsiu , from which we may cull the following : - Later scholars have misread Sun Tzů, distorting his words and trying to make them square with their own one-sided views. Thus, though 1 Ibid.: 5t Pa A Fe i ti hile # # # Ha FT - - # : ? T'ung K 'ao, loc. cit.: 0 E ZI 3 Ibid. INTRODUCTION XXXIX commentators have not been lacking, only a few have proved equal to the task. My friend Shêng-yü has not fallen into this mistake. In at tempting to provide a critical commentary for Sun Tzủ's work, he does not lose sight of the fact that these sayings were intended for states en gaged in internecine warfare ; that the author is not concerned with the military conditions prevailing under the sovereigns of the three ancient dynasties , ' nor with the nine punitive measures prescribed to theMinister of War. 2 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 Shêng-yü 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 Shêng-yü. 3 Making some allowance for the exuberance of friendship , · I am inclined to endorse this favourable judgment, and would certainly place him above Ch 'ên Hao in order of merit. 1 The Hsia, the Shang and the Chou. Although the last-named was nominally existent in Sun Tzủ 's day, it retained hardly a vestige of power, and the old mili tary organisation had practically gone by the board. I can suggest no other ex planation of the passage. 2 See Chou Li, XXIX. 6 - 10. 3 See Tu Shu,我政典 , ch.90, f.22 : 後之學者徒見其書又各牵於己見是以注者雖多而少當也獨吾友食不然嘗評武之書日此戰國相傾之說也三代王者之師司馬九伐之法武不及也然亦愛其文略而意深其行師用兵料敵制勝亦皆有法其言甚有序次而注者之或失其意乃自為注凡膠于偏見者皆去傳以己意而發之然後武之說不泪而明吾知此書當與三家並傳後世取其說者往往于吾聖愈多 UCTION XL INTROD 9. I Wang Hsi, also of the Sung dynasty , is decidedly original in some of his interpretations, but much less judicious than Mei Yao-ch'ên , 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 com parison is not often flattering to him. We learn from Ch 'ao Kung-wu that Wang Hsi revised the ancient text of Sun Tzů , filling up lacunae and correcting mistakes. ? 10. Tos RLE Ho Yen -hsi of the Sung dynasty. The personal name of this commentator is given as above by 13 th Chêng Ch'iao in the T 'ung Chih , written about the middle of the twelfth century , but he appears simply as for # Ho Shih in the Yü Hai, and Ma Tuan -lin quotes Ch ‘ao Kung-wu as saying that his personal name is un known. There seems to be no reason to doubt Chêng Ch‘iao 's statement, otherwise I should have been inclined to hazard a guess and identify him with one you # # Ho Ch'ü -fei, the author of a short treatise on war entitled W A , who lived in the latter part of the 11th century. ? Ho Shih 's commentary, in the words of the T 'ien -i-ko catalogue, tb contains helpful additions” here and there, but is chiefly remarkable for the copious ex tracts taken , in adapted form , from the dynastic histories and other sources. 11. Be To Chang Yü. The list closes with a com mentator of no great originality perhaps, but gifted with admirable powers of lucid exposition. His commentary is based on that of Ts'ao Kung , whose terse sentences he contrives to expand and develop in masterly fashion. Without Chang Yü , 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 Kao, or 1 Taung Kao, chi 22I, f. I rº : 2 See py ch. 99, f. 16 vº. INTRODUCTION XLI the Yü Hai, but it finds a niche in the T 'ung Chih , which also names him as the author of the “ Lives of Famous Generals.” 1 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 practise 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 enquiry for men skilled in war, and military topics became the vogue amongst all the high officials. Hence it is that the commentators of Sun Tzů in our dynasty belong mainly to that period.” ? Besides these eleven commentators, there are several others whose work has not come down to us. The Sui Shu mentions four, namely I Wang Ling (often quoted by Tu Yu as I F ); F Chang Tzů -shang; Y A Chia Hsü of Wei; 3 and vt Shen Yu of Wu. The T 'ang Shu adds to the Sun Hao, and the T 'ung Chih Hsiao Chi, while the T 'u Shu mentions a Ming commentator, D E Huang Jun -yü. 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. Certainly in the case of the latter, the entry L F F in the T 'ung K 'ao, without the fol lowing note, would give one to understand that he had written an independent commentary of his own. There are two works, described in the Ssu K 'u Ch‘üan 1 This appears to be still extant. See Wylie 's “ Notes," p. 91 (new edition ). 2 Tʻung K ‘ao, loc. cit.: El #T F IT 元吴既叛邊將數則朝廷頗訪知兵者士大夫人人言兵矣故本朝注解孫武書者大抵皆其 on H. 3 A notable person in his day. His biography is given in the San Kuo Chih , ch. 10. XLII INTRODUCTION Shu 1 and no doubt extremely rare, which I should much like to have seen. One is entitled F # la , in 5 chüan. omn It gives selections from four new commentators, probably of the Ming dynasty, as well as from the eleven known to us. The names of the four are 1 TT Hsieh Yüan ;D Chang Ao; W Li Ts'ai; and You Huang Chih chêng. The other work is tan F to in 4 chüan , compiled by Chêng Tuan of the present dynasty. It is a com pendium of information on ancient warfare, with special reference to Sun Tzů's 13 chapters. APPRECIATIONS OF Sun Tzů. Sun Tzů has exercised a potent fascination over the minds of some of China' s greatestmen. Among the famous generals who are known to have studied his pages with enthusiasm may be mentioned o Han Hsin (d. B. C. 196), 2 Fêng I (d. A. D. 34 ), E3 L ü Mêng (d. 219), 4 and I The Yo Fei (1103- 1141). 5 The opinion of Ts'ao Kung, who disputes with Han Hsin the highest place in Chinese military annals , has already been recorded. 6 Still more remarkable, in one way, is the testimony of purely literary men, such as that in Su Hsün (the father of Su Tung -p ‘ o ), who wrote several essays on military topics, all of which owe their chief inspiration to Sun Tzů. The following short passage by him is preserved in the Yü Hai: 7 - 1 Ch. 100, f. 2, 3.. 2 See p. 144. 3 Hou Han Shu , ch. 17 ad init. 4 San Kuo Chih , ch. 54 , f. 10vº (commentary ). 5 Sung Shih, ch. 365 ad init. 6 The few Europeans who have yet had an opportunity of acquainting themselves with Sun Tzů are not behindhand in their praise. In this connection, I may per haps 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. ii on page 77 is one that the people of this country would do well to take to heart." | 1 Ch. Tạo, f. 13 rº. INTRODUCTION XLIII Sun Wu's saying, that in war one cannot make certain of conquering, 1 is very different indeed from what other books tell us. ? 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 Tzů's work, where the style is terse, but the meaning fully brought out.3 | The性理彙要 , ch.17, contains the following extract from the em “Impartial Judgments in the Garden of Literature” by 鄭厚 Cheng Hou : 一 Sun Tzu 's 13 chapters are not only the staple and base of allmilitary 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 Yü, the I Ching and the great Commentary, 4 as well as the writings of Mencius, Hsün K ‘uang and Yang Chu, all fall below the level of Sun Tzů. 5 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.” 6 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 1 SeeIV. S 3. 3. 2 The allusion may be to Mencius VI. 2. ix , 2 : 戰必克 , 武用兵不能必克與書所言遠甚吳起與武一體之人皆著書言兵世稱之日孫吳然而起之言兵也輕法制草略無所統記不若武之書詞約而義盡 4 The Tso Chuan. 孫子十三篇惟武人之根本女士亦當盡心為其詞約而易而深暢而可用論語易大傳之流孟荀楊著書皆不及也。是人君窮兵黷武之心, XLIV INTRODUCTION 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 col lisions of the ancient feudal States, the grim conflicts with Huns, Turks and other invaders after the centralisation 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 cap tains to whom China can can point with pride. As in all countries, the greatest are found 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 illumined 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 do minates 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 Tzů 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 INTRODUCTION XLV 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 Ssů -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 " civilisation ,” 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. 1 The next piece is taken from Tu Mu' s preface to his commentary on Sun Tzů : — 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 1 Shih Chi, ch. 25, fol. 1: X V y at 3 * PAL 世夷險阻救危殆自含血戴角之獸見犯則校而况於人懷好惡喜怒之氣喜則愛心生怨則毒整加情性之理也...豈與世儒闇於大較不權輕重猥云德化不當用兵大至署辱乃侵犯削弱遂轨不移等哉故教答不可廢於家刑罰不可捐於國詩伐不可優於天下用之 IT # 11 Ź TE. XLVI INTRODUCTION 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 haling 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 be tween 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 institution of torture and flogging. For more serious outbreaks of lawlessness, which are hard to suppress , a greater amount of force is necessary : 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 reliefto 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 ac quired by study.” 3 “ 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 of the way in 1 The first instance oft g iven in the P'ei Wên Yün Fu is from Ssů-ma Ch‘ien's letter to £ * Jên An (see t he ch. 41, f. 9 r ),where M.Chavannes translates it “ la cangue et la chaîne.” But in the present passage it seems rather to indicate some single instrument of torture. ? THI # # # * FZHT # # # # # F 市者吏之所為也驅兵數萬據其城郭艷其妻子斬其罪人亦吏之所為也木索兵刃無異意也答之與動無異刑也小而易制用力少者木索答也大而難治用力多者兵刃斬也很期於 * # FEE. 3 Cf. Shih Chi, ch. 47, f. il vº. INTRODUCTION XLVII which, through sheer lack of reasoning, men unhappily lose sight of fun damental principles. 1 When the Duke of Chou was minister under Ch' êng Wang, he regulated ceremonies and made music , and venerated the arts of scholarship and learning ; yet when the barbarians of the River Huai revolted, 2 he sal lied forth and chastised them. When Confucius held office under the Duke of Lu , and a meeting was convened at Chia-ku , 3 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 Tzů in high esteem. He also appeals to the authority of the Classics : 一 Our Master Confucius, answering Duke Ling of Wei, said : “ I have never studied matters connected with armies and battalions.” 5 Replying to K ‘ung Wên-tzů , he said : “ I have not been instructed about buff-coats and weapons.” 6 But if we turn to the meeting at Chia -ku, 7 we find that he used armed force against the men of Lai, 8 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. 9 He once uttered the words: “ If I fight, I con 1季孫問于再有日子之戰學之乎性達之乎對日學之季孫日事孔子惡乎學再有日即學之於孔子者大聖兼該文武並用適聞其戰法實未之詳也夫不知自何代何年何人分為二道日文日武離而俱行因使籍納之士不敢言兵甚或恥言之苟有言者世以為讓暴異人人不比數鳴呼亡失根本斯為最甚, 2 See Shu Ching , prefaces 55. 3 See Tso Chuan , X. 2 ; Shih Chi, ch. 47, f. 4 rº. 周公相成王制禮作樂尊大儒術有淮夷叛則出征之夫子相魯公會于夾谷日有文事者必有武備此辱齊侯伏不敢動是二大聖人覺不知兵乎 , 5 Lun Yü , XV. 1. 6 Tso Chuan,京公 , X. 7. Seesupra. 8 Tso Chuan, # 4 , X. 2. Ch 9 Ibid. XII. 5 ; Chia Vit, ch, I ad hin. XLVIII INTRODUCTION quer." 1 And Jan Yu also said : “ The Sage exercises both civil and mil itary functions.” 2 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. 3 Sun Hsing -yen , the editor of Sun Tzů , writes in similar strain : 一 Confucius said : “ I am unversed in military matters." + 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, 5 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 Tzů , who was employed by Wu Tzů -hsü , there is no need to learn it oneself. Hence the remark added by Confucius : “ If I fight, I conquer." 6 The men of the present day, however, wilfully interpret these words of Confucius in their narrowest sense , as though he meant that books on the art of war were not worth reading. With blind persistency, they adduce the example of Chao Kua, who pored over his father's books to no purpose, ? as a proof that all military theory is useless. Again , seeing I have failed to trace this utterance. See note 2 on p. xliii. 2 See patpra. 性理彙要 , loc.cit:普吾夫子對衛靈公以軍旅之事未之學答孔文子以甲兵之事未之聞及觀夾谷之會則以兵加萊而齊侯懼費人之亂則命将士以伐之而費人北嘗日我戰則克而再有亦日聖人文武並用孔子豈有真未學未聞哉特以軍旅甲兵之事非所以為訓也 , 4 See supra. | 5 Via,軍禮 , the other four being 吉 , 凶 , 賓 and 嘉 “worship, mourning, entertainment of guests and festive rites.” See Shu Ching, II. 1. iii. 8, and Chou Li, IX. fol. 49. | | Preface to SunTai : 孔子日軍旅之事未之學又日我戰則克孔子定禮正樂兵則五禮之一不必以為專門之學故云未學所為聖人有所不知或行軍好謀則學之或善將將如伍子胥之用孫子又何必自學之故又日我戰則克也 , | iSee p. 166. INTRODUCTION XLIX that books on war have to do with such things as opportunism in design ing 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. " Weapons are baneful 2 and fighting perilous; and unless a general is in constant practice, he ought not to hazard other men 's lives in battle. 3 Hence it is essential that Sun Tzů 's 13 chapters should be studied. 4 Hsiang Liang used to instruct his nephew Chi 5 in the art of war. Chi got a rough idea of the art in its general bearings, but would not pursue his studies to their proper outcome, the consequence being that he was finally defeated and overthrown. He did not realise that the tricks and artifices of war are beyond verbal computation. Duke Hsiang of Sung 6 and King Yen of Hsü ? 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 , 8 and also of his having left the Sung State in disguise. 9 Can we then recklessly arraign Sun Tzŭ for disregarding truth and honesty? 10 1 This is a rather obscure allusion to Tso Chu -, XXXI. 4 , where Tzuchtan says: 子有美錦不使人學製為 “If you have a piece of beautiful brocade, you will not employ a mere learner to make it up." 2 Cf.TaoTe Ching,ch.31 兵者不祥之器 , 3 Sun Hsing-yen might have quoted Confucius again. See Lun Yü, XIII. 29, 30. 4今世泥孔子之言以為兵書不足觀又泥趙括徒能讀父書之言以為成法不足用又見兵書有權謀有反間以為非聖人之法皆不知吾儒之學者史之治事可習而能然古人猶有學製之懼兵凶戰危將不素習未可以人命為嘗試則十三篇之不可不觀也. 5 Better known as Hsiang Yü [B.C. 233 –202 ]. 6 The third among the 五伯 (or 霸 )enumeratedon p. 141. For thein cident cident referred to, see T'so Chuan , L , XXII. 4. ? See supra, p. xvi, note 4. 8 Shih Chi, ch. 47,f. 7r. 19 Ibid., ch. 38. f. 8. 10 項梁教籍兵法籍略知其意不肯竟學卒以傾覆不知兵法之弊可勝言哉宋襄徐偃仁而 INTRODUCTION

Sun Tzu on the Art of War PDF

Document Details

Tags

Related

Summary

Full Transcript

Upgrade to continue