Introduction: Sun Wu and His Book t4g21ge
Ssu-ma Ch`ien gives the following biography of Sun Tzu: a1i
Sun Tzu Wu (=Sun Tzu) was a native of the Ch`i State. His ART OF WAR brought him
to the notice of Ho Lu, a2i King of Wu. Ho Lu said to him: "I have carefully
perused your 13 chapters. May I submit your theory of managing soldiers to a slight
test?" Sun Tzu 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 Tzu divided them into two companies, and placed one of the King's favorite
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 h and and left hand?" The girls replied: Yes.
Sun Tzu 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 roun d towards your back."
Again the girls assented. The words of command having been thus explained, he
set up the halberds and battle-axes in order to begin the drill. Then, to the
sound of drums, he gave the order "Right turn." But the girls only burst
out laughing. Sun Tzu 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 Tzu: "If words
of command are not clear and distinct, if orders are not thoroughly understood,
the general is to blame. But if his orders ARE clear, and the soldiers nevertheless
disobey, then it is the fault of their officers."
So saying, he ordered the leaders of the two companies to be beheaded. Now the
king of Wu was watching the scene from the top of a raised pavilion; and when
he saw that his favorite concubines were about to be executed, he was greatly
alarmed and hurried ly sent down the following message: "We are now quite
satisfied as to our general's ability to handle troops. If we are bereft of these
two concubines, our meat and drink will lose their savor. It is our wish that
they shall not be beheaded."
Sun Tzu replied: "Having once received His Majesty's commission to be the
general of his forces, there are certain commands of His Majesty which, acting
in that capacity, I am unable to accept." Accordingly, he had the two leaders
beheaded, and straig htway installed the pair next in order as leaders in their
place. When this had been done, the drum was sounded for the drill once more;
and the girls went through all the evolution, turning to the right or to the left,
marching ahead or wheeling back, k neeling or standing, with perfect accuracy
and precision, not venturing to utter a sound.
Then Sun Tzu sent a messenger to the King saying: "Your soldiers, Sire, are
now properly drilled and disciplined, and ready for your majesty's inspection.
They can be put to any use that their sovereign may desire; bid them go through
fire and water, an d they will not disobey."
But the King replied: "Let our general cease drilling and return to camp.
As for us, We have no wish to come down and inspect the troops." Thereupon
Sun Tzu said: "The King is only fond of words, and cannot translate them
into deeds." After that, Ho Lu saw that Sun Tzu was one who knew how to handle
an army, and finally appointed him general. In the west, he defeated the Ch`u
State and forced his way into Ying, the capital; to the north he put fear into
the States of Ch`i and Chin, and spre ad his fame abroad amongst the feudal princes.
And Sun Tzu shared in the might of the King.
About Sun Tzu himself this is all that Ssu-ma Ch`ien has to tell us in this chapter.
But he proceeds to give a biography of his descendant, Sun Pin, born about a hundred
years after his famous ancestor's death, and also the outstanding military genius
o f his time. The historian speaks of him too as Sun Tzu, and in his preface we
read: "Sun Tzu had his feet cut off and yet continued to discuss the art
of war." a3i It seems likely, then, that "Pin" was a nickname bestowed
on him after his mutilation, unless the story was invented in order to account
for the name. The crowning incident of his career, the crushing defeat of his
treacherous rival P`ang Chuan, will be found briefly related in Chapter V. ss.
19, note.
To return to the elder Sun Tzu. He is mentioned in two other passages of the SHIH
CHI: In the third year of his reign a512 BCi Ho Lu, king of Wu, took the field
with Tzu-hsu ai.e. Wu Yuani and Po P`ei, and attacked Ch`u. He captured the town
of Shu and slew the two prince's sons who had formerly been generals of Wu. He
was then meditating a descent on Ying athe capitali; but the general Sun Wu said:
"The army is exhausted. It is not yet possible. We must wait".... aAfter
further successful fighting ,i "in the ninth year a506 BCi, King Ho Lu addressed
Wu Tzu-hsu and Sun Wu, saying: "Formerly, you declared that it was not yet
possible for us to enter Ying. Is the time ripe now?"
The two men replied: "Ch`u's general Tzu-ch`ang, a4i 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 s ucceed." Ho Lu followed this advice, abeat Ch`u in five pitched
battles and marched into Ying.i a5i
This is the latest date at which anything is recorded of Sun Wu. He does not appear
to have survived his patron, who died from the effects of a wound in 496.
In another chapter there occurs this passage: a6i -- From this time onward, a
number of famous soldiers arose, one after the other: Kao-fan, a7i who was employed
by the Chin State; Wang-tzu, a8i in the service of Ch`i; and Sun Wu, in the service
of Wu. These men developed and threw light upon the principles of war.
It is obvious enough that Ssu-ma Ch`ien at least had no doubt about the reality
of Sun Wu as an historical personage; and with one exception, to be noticed presently,
he is by far the most important authority on the period in question. It will not
be nec essary, therefore, to say much of such a work as the WU YUEH CH`UN CH`IU,
which is supposed to have been written by Chao Yeh of the 1st century AD
The attribution is somewhat doubtful; but even if it were otherwise, his account
would be of little value, based as it is on the SHIH CHI and expanded with romantic
details. The story of Sun Tzu will be found, for what it is worth, in chapter
2. The onl y new points in it worth noting are: (1) Sun Tzu was first recommended
to Ho Lu by Wu Tzu-hsu. (2) He is called a native of Wu. (3) He had previously
lived a retired life, and his contemporaries were unaware of his ability.
The following passage occurs in the Huai-nan Tzu: "When sovereign and ministers
show perversity of mind, it is impossible even for a Sun Tzu to encounter the
foe." Assuming that this work is genuine (and hitherto no doubt has been
cast upon it), we hav e here the earliest direct reference for Sun Tzu, for Huai-nan
Tzu died in 122 BC, many years before the SHIH CHI was given to the world.
Liu Hsiang (80-9 BC) says: "The reason why Sun Tzu at the head of 30,000
men beat Ch`u with 200,000 is that the latter were undisciplined."
Teng Ming-shih informs us that the surname "Sun" was bestowed on Sun
Wu's grandfather by Duke Ching of Ch`i a547-490 BCi. Sun Wu's father Sun P`ing,
rose to be a Minister of State in Ch`i, and Sun Wu himself, whose style was Ch`ang-ch`ing,
fled to Wu on account of the rebellion which was being fomented by the kindred
of T`ien Pao. He had three sons, of whom the second, named Ming, was the father
of Sun Pin. According to this account then, Pin was the grandson of Wu, which,
considering that Sun Pin's v ictory over Wei was gained in 341 BC, may be dismissed
as chronological impossible. Whence these data were obtained by Teng Ming-shih
I do not know, but of course no reliance whatever can be placed in them.
An interesting document which has survived from the close of the Han period is
the short preface written by the Great Ts`ao Ts`ao, or Wei Wu Ti, for his edition
of Sun Tzu. I shall give it in full: -- I have heard that the ancients used bows
and arrows to their advantage. a10i The SHU CHU mentions "the army"
among the "eight objects of government." The I CHING says: "'army'
indicates firmness and justice; the experienced leader will have good fortune."
The SHIH CHING says: "The King rose majestic in his wrath, and he marshaled
his troops." The Yellow Emperor, T`ang the Completer and Wu Wang all used
spears and battle-axes in order to succor their generation.
The SSU-MA FA says: "If one man slay another of set purpose, he himself may
rightfully be slain." He who relies solely on warlike measures shall be exterminated;
he who relies solely on peaceful measures shall perish. Instances of this are
Fu Ch`ai a11 i on the one hand and Yen Wang on the other. a12i In military matters,
the Sage's rule is normally to keep the peace, and to move his forces only when
occasion requires. He will not use armed force unless driven to it by necessity.
Many books have I read on the subject of war and fighting; but the work composed
by Sun Wu is the profoundest of them all. aSun Tzu was a native of the Ch`i state,
his personal name was Wu. He wrote the ART OF WAR in 13 chapters for Ho Lu, King
of Wu. Its principles were tested on women, and he was subsequently made a general.
He led an army westwards, crushed the Ch`u state and entered Ying the capital.
In the north, he kept Ch`i and Chin in awe.
A hundred years and more after his time, Sun Pin lived. He was a descendant of
Wu.i a13i In his treatment of deliberation and planning, the importance of rapidity
in taking the field, a14i clearness of conception, and depth of design, Sun Tzu
stands bey ond 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 i s the motive which has led me to outline a rough explanation of
the whole.
One thing to be noticed in the above is the explicit statement that the 13 chapters
were specially composed for King Ho Lu. This is supported by the internal evidence
of I. ss. 15, in which it seems clear that some ruler is addressed.
In the bibliographic section of the HAN SHU, there is an entry which has given
rise to much discussion: "The works of Sun Tzu of Wu in 82 P`IEN (or chapters),
with diagrams in 9 CHUAN." It is evident that this cannot be merely the 13
chapters known to S su-ma Ch`ien, or those we possess today. Chang Shou-chieh
refers to an edition of Sun Tzu's ART OF WAR of which the "13 chapters"
formed the first CHUAN, adding that there were two other CHUAN besides. This has
brought forth a theory, that the bulk of these 82 chapters consisted of other
writings of Sun Tzu we should call them apocryphal-similar to the WEN TA, of which
a specimen dealing with the Nine Situations a15i is preserved in the T`UNG TIEN,
and another in Ho Shin's commentary.
It is suggested that before his interview with Ho Lu, Sun Tzu had only written
the 13 chapters, but afterwards composed a sort of exegesis in the form of question
and answer between himself and the King. Pi I-hsun, the author of the SUN TZU
HSU LU, backs this up with a quotation from the WU YUEH CH`UN CH`IU: "The
King of Wu summoned Sun Tzu, and asked him questions about the art of war. Each
time he set forth a chapter of his work, the King could not find words enough
to praise him." As he points out, if the whole work was expounded on the
same scale as in the above-mentioned fragments, the total number of chapters could
not fail to be considerable.
Then the numerous other treatises attributed to Sun Tzu might be included. The
fact that the HAN CHIH mentions no work of Sun Tzu except the 82 P`IEN, whereas
the Sui and T`ang bibliographies give the titles of others in addition to the
"13 chapters," is good proof, Pi I-hsun thinks, that all of these were
contained in the 82 P`IEN. Without pinning our faith to the accuracy of details
supplied by the WU YUEH CH`UN CH`IU, or admitting the genuineness of any of the
treatises cited by Pi I-hsun, we may se e in this theory a probable solution of
the mystery.
Between Ssu-ma Ch`ien and Pan Ku there was plenty of time for a luxuriant crop
of forgeries to have grown up under the magic name of Sun Tzu, and the 82 P`IEN
may very well represent a collected edition of these lumped together with the
original work. It is also possible, though less likely, that some of them existed
in the time of the earlier historian and were purposely ignored by him. a16i
Tu Mu's conjecture seems to be based on a passage which states: "Wei Wu Ti
strung together Sun Wu's Art of War," which in turn may have resulted from
a misunderstanding of the final words of Ts`ao King's preface. This, as Sun Hsing-yen
points out, is on ly a modest way of saying that he made an explanatory paraphrase,
or in other words, wrote a commentary on it. On the whole, this theory has met
with very little acceptance. Thus, the SSU K`U CH`UAN SHU says: "The mention
of the 13 chapters in the SHI H CHI shows that they were in existence before the
HAN CHIH, and that latter accretions are not to be considered part of the original
work. Tu Mu's assertion can certainly not be taken as proof."
There is every reason to suppose, then, that the 13 chapters existed in the time
of Ssu-ma Ch`ien practically as we have them now. That the work was then well
known he tells us in so many words. "Sun Tzu's 13 Chapters and Wu Ch`i's
Art of War are the tw o books that people commonly refer to on the subject of
military matters. Both of them are widely distributed, so I will not discuss them
here." But as we go further back, serious difficulties begin to arise. The
salient fact which has to be faced is t hat the TSO CHUAN, the greatest contemporary
record, makes no mention whatsoever of Sun Wu, either as a general or as a writer.
It is natural, in view of this awkward circumstance, that many scholars should
not only cast doubt on the story of Sun Wu as g iven in the SHIH CHI, but even
show themselves frankly skeptical as to the existence of the man at all.
The most powerful presentment of this side of the case is to be found in the following
disposition by Yeh Shui-hsin: a17i -- It is stated in Ssu-ma Ch`ien's history
that Sun Wu was a native of the Ch`i State, and employed by Wu; and that in the
reign of H o Lu he crushed Ch`u, entered Ying, and was a great general. But in
Tso's Commentary no Sun Wu appears at all. It is true that Tso's Commentary need
not contain absolutely everything that other histories contain. But Tso has not
omitted to mention vulg ar plebeians and hireling ruffians such as Ying K`ao-shu,
a18i Ts`ao Kuei, a19i, Chu Chih-wu and Chuan She-chu a20i. In the case of Sun
Wu, whose fame and achievements were so brilliant, the omission is much more glaring.
Again, details are given, in their due order, about his contemporaries Wu Yuan
and the Minister P`ei. a21i Is it credible that Sun Wu alone should have been
passed over?
In point of literary style, Sun Tzu's work belongs to the same school as KUAN
TZU, a22i LIU T`AO, a23i and the YUEH YU a24i and may have been the production
of some private scholar living towards the end of the "Spring and Autumn"
or the beginning of the "Warring States" period. a25i The story that
his precepts were actually applied by the Wu State, is merely the outcome of big
talk on the part of his followers.
From the flourishing period of the Chou dynasty a26i 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 un til the period of the "Six States" a27i that this custom
changed. Now although Wu was an uncivilized State, it is conceivable that Tso
should have left unrecorded the fact that Sun Wu was a great general and yet held
no civil office? What we are told, t herefore, about Jang-chu a28i and Sun Wu,
is not authentic matter, but the reckless fabrication of theorizing pundits. The
story of Ho Lu's experiment on the women, in particular, is utterly preposterous
and incredible.
Yeh Shui-hsin represents Ssu-ma Ch`ien as having said that Sun Wu crushed Ch`u
and entered Ying. This is not quite correct. No doubt the impression left on the
reader's mind is that he at least shared in these exploits. The fact may or may
not be signi ficant; but it is nowhere explicitly stated in the SHIH CHI either
that Sun Tzu was general on the occasion of the taking of Ying, or that he even
went there at all. Moreover, as we know that Wu Yuan and Po P`ei both took part
in the expedition, and also that its success was largely due to the dash and enterprise
of Fu Kai, Ho Lu's younger brother, it is not easy to see how yet another general
could have played a very prominent part in the same campaign.
Ch`en Chen-sun of the Sung dynasty has the note: -- Military writers look upon
Sun Wu as the father of their art. But the fact that he does not appear in the
TSO CHUAN, although he is said to have served under Ho Lu King of Wu, makes it
uncertain what p eriod he really belonged to. He also says: -- The works of Sun
Wu and Wu Ch`i may be of genuine antiquity.
It is noticeable that both Yeh Shui-hsin and Ch`en Chen-sun, while rejecting the
personality of Sun Wu as he figures in Ssu-ma Ch`ien's history, are inclined to
accept the date traditionally assigned to the work which passes under his name.
The author of the HSU LU fails to appreciate this distinction, and consequently
his bitter attack on Ch`en Chen-sun really misses its mark. He makes one of two
points, however, which certainly tell in favor of the high antiquity of our "13
chapters." "Sun Tzu," he s ays, "must have lived in the age
of Ching Wang a519-476i, because he is frequently plagiarized in subsequent works
of the Chou, Ch`in and Han dynasties." The two most shameless offenders in
this respect are Wu Ch`i and Huai-nan Tzu, both of them importan t historical
personages in their day. The former lived only a century after the alleged date
of Sun Tzu, and his death is known to have taken place in 381 BC It was to him,
according to Liu Hsiang, that Tseng Shen delivered the TSO CHUAN, which had bee
n entrusted to him by its author. a29i
Now the fact that quotations from the ART OF WAR, acknowledged or otherwise, are
to be found in so many authors of different epochs, establishes a very strong
anterior to them all, -- in other words, that Sun Tzu's treatise was already in
existence toward s the end of the 5th century BC Further proof of Sun Tzu's antiquity
is furnished by the archaic or wholly obsolete meanings attaching to a number
of the words he uses. A list of these, which might perhaps be extended, is given
in the HSU LU; and though some of the interpretations are doubtful, the main argument
is hardly affected thereby.
Again, it must not be forgotten that Yeh Shui-hsin, a scholar and critic of the
first rank, deliberately pronounces the style of the 13 chapters to belong to
the early part of the fifth century. Seeing that he is actually engaged in an
attempt to disprov e 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. ss. 1, there is an unmistakable allusion to the ancient system of land-tenure
which had already passed away by the time of Mencius, who was anxious to see it
revived in a modified form. a30i The only warfare Sun Tzu knows is that carried
on between the various feudal princes, in which armored chariots play a large
part. Their use seems to have entirely died out before the end of the Chou dynasty.
He speaks as a man of Wu, a state whic h ceased to exist as early as 473 BC 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 bona fide production are sensibly diminished. The great age
of forgeries did not come until long after. That it should have been forged in
the period immed iately following 473 is particularly unlikely, for no one, as
a rule, hastens to identify himself with a lost cause. As for Yeh Shui-hsin's
theory, that the author was a literary recluse, that seems to me quite untenable.
If one thing is more apparent t han another after reading the maxims of Sun Tzu,
it is that their essence has been distilled from a large store of personal observation
and experience. They reflect the mind not only of a born strategist, gifted with
a rare faculty of generalization, but also of a practical soldier closely acquainted
with the military conditions of his time.
To say nothing of the fact that these sayings have been accepted and endorsed
by all the greatest captains of Chinese history, they offer a combination of freshness
and sincerity, acuteness and common sense, which quite excludes the idea that
they were ar tificially concocted in the study. If we admit, then, that the 13
chapters were the genuine production of a military man living towards the end
of the "CH`UN CH`IU" period, are we not bound, in spite of the silence
of the TSO CHUAN, to accept Ssu-ma Ch`i en's account in its entirety? In view
of his high repute as a sober historian, must we not hesitate to assume that the
records he drew upon for Sun Wu's biography were false and untrustworthy? The
answer, I fear, must be in the negative. There is stil l 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 Tzu in which he alludes to contemporary affairs.
The first in VI. ss. 21: -- Though according to my estimate the soldiers of Yueh
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. ss. 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 Yueh are enemies; yet if
they are crossing a river in the same boat and are caught by a storm, they will
c ome 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 Yueh. So much
has been observed by Pi I-hsun. But what has hitherto escaped notice is that they
also s eriously impair the credibility of Ssu-ma Ch`ien's narrative. As we have
seen above, the first positive date given in connection with Sun Wu is 512 BC
He is then spoken of as a general, acting as confidential adviser to Ho Lu, so
that his alleged intro duction to that monarch had already taken place, and of
course the 13 chapters must have been written earlier still. But at that time,
and for several years after, down to the capture of Ying in 506, Ch`u and not
Yueh, was the great hereditary enemy of W u. The two states, Ch`u and Wu, had
been constantly at war for over half a century, a31i whereas the first war between
Wu and Yueh was waged only in 510, a32i 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 Yueh 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.
BC |
|
514 | Accession of Ho Lu.
512 | Ho Lu attacks Ch`u, but is dissuaded from entering Ying,
| the capital. SHI CHI mentions Sun Wu as general.
511 | Another attack on Ch`u.
510 | Wu makes a successful attack on Yueh. This is the first
| war between the two states.
509 | or | Ch`u invades Wu, but is signally defeated at Yu-chang.
508 |
506 | Ho Lu attacks Ch`u with the aid of T`ang and Ts`ai.
| Decisive battle of Po-chu, and capture of Ying. Last
| mention of Sun Wu in SHIH CHI.
505 | Yueh 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 Yueh.
496 | Wu attacks Yueh, but is defeated by Kou Chien at Tsui-li.
| Ho Lu is killed.
494 | Fu Ch`ai defeats Kou Chien in the great battle of Fu | chaio, and enters the capital of Yueh.
485 | or | Kou Chien renders homage to Wu. Death of Wu Tzu-hsu.
484 |
482 | Kou Chien invades Wu in the absence of Fu Ch`ai.
478 | to | Further attacks by Yueh on Wu.
476 |
475 | Kou Chien lays siege to the capital of Wu.
473 | Final defeat and extinction of Wu.
The sentence quoted above from VI. ss. 21 hardly strikes me as one that could
have been written in the full flush of victory. It seems rather to imply that,
for the moment at least, the tide had turned against Wu, and that she was getting
the worst of th e struggle. Hence we may conclude that our treatise was not
in existence in 505, before which date Yueh does not appear to have scored any
notable success against Wu. Ho Lu died in 496, so that if the book was written
for him, it must have been during the period 505-496, when there was a lull
in the hostilities, Wu having presumably exhausted by its supreme effort against
Ch`u. On the other hand, if we choose to disregard the tradition connecting
Sun Wu's name with Ho Lu, it might equally well have s een the light between
496 and 494, or possibly in the period 482-473, when Yueh was once again becoming
a very serious menace. a33i 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 t he great commentary. It was Wu Tzu-hsu, he says, who got all the
credit of Sun Wu's exploits, because the latter (being an alien) was not rewarded
with an office in the State.
How then did the Sun Tzu legend originate? It may be that the growing celebrity
of the book imparted by degrees a kind of factitious renown to its author. It
was felt to be only right and proper that one so well versed in the science
of war should have solid achievements to his credit as well. Now the capture
of Ying was undoubtedly the greatest feat of arms in Ho Lu's reign; it made
a deep and lasting impression on all the surrounding states, and raised Wu to
the short-lived zenith of her power. Hen ce, 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, a34i Po P`ei and Fu Kai?
It is obvious that any attempt to reconstruct even the outline of Sun Tzu'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 gat hered experience, though only in the capacity of a subordinate
officer, during the intense military activity which marked the first half of
the prince's reign. a35i If he rose to be a general at all, he certainly was
never on an equal footing with the t hree above mentioned.
He was doubtless present at the investment and occupation of Ying, and witnessed
Wu's sudden collapse in the following year. Yueh's attack at this critical juncture,
when her rival was embarrassed on every side, seems to have convinced him that
this ups tart kingdom was the great enemy against whom every effort would henceforth
have to be directed. Sun Wu was thus a well-seasoned warrior when he sat down
to write his famous book, which according to my reckoning must have appeared
towards the end, rather than the beginning of Ho Lu's reign. The story of the
women may possibly have grown out of some real incident occurring about the
same time. As we hear no more of Sun Wu after this from any source, he is hardly
likely to have survived his patron or to have taken part in the death-struggle
with Yueh, which began with the disaster at Tsui-li.
If these inferences are approximately correct, there is a certain irony in the
fate which decreed that China's most illustrious man of peace should be contemporary
with her greatest writer on war.
The Text of Sun 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" a1758i.
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 a1752-1818i, a distinguished antiquarian and classical scholar,
who claimed to be an actual descendant of Sun Wu, a36i 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. a37i 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 aof Chi T`ien-paoi 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.
a38i 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,
a39i 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 aA.D. 155-220i. 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. a40i
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, a41i but this is a mistake. In Sun Hsing-yen's
preface, he appears as Meng Shih of the Liang dynasty a502-557i. 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. a42i 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, a43i nor with the nine punitive measures prescribed to the Minister
of War. a44i
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. a45i
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." a46i
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 aChaoi Yuan-hao's rebellion
came a1038-42i 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. a47i
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; a48i 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.), a49i Feng I (d. 34
A.D.), a50i Lu Meng (d. 219), a51i and Yo Fei (1103-1141). a52i The opinion
of Ts`ao Kung, who disputes with Han Hsin the highest place in Chinese military
annals, has already been recorded. a53i
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: a54i -- Sun Wu's saying, that in
war one cannot make certain of conquering, a55i is very different indeed from
what other books tell us. a56i 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, a57i 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.
a58i
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." a59i "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, a60i he sallied forth and chastised
them. When Confucius held office under the Duke of Lu, and a meeting was convened
at Chia-ku, a61i 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."
a62i 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." a63i And Jan Yu also said: "The
Sage exercises both civil and military functions." a64i 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." a65i 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, a66i 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, a67i 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. a68i
Weapons are baneful a69i and fighting perilous; and useless unless a general
is in constant practice, he ought not to hazard other men's lives in battle.
a70i Hence it is essential that Sun Tzu's 13 chapters shoul d be studied.
Hsiang Liang used to instruct his nephew Chi a71i 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,
a72i and also of his having left the Sung State in disguise. a73i Can we then
recklessly arraign Sun Tzu for disregarding truth and honesty?
Chapter I. LAYING PLANS
aTs`ao Kung, in defining the meaning of the Chinese for the title of this chapter,
says it refers to the deliberations in the temple selected by the general for
his temporary use, or as we should say, in his tent. See. ss. 26.i
1. Sun Tzu said: The art of war is of vital importance to the State.
2. It is a matter of life and death, a road either to safety or to ruin. Hence
it is a subject of inquiry which can on no account be neglected.
3. The art of war, then, is governed by five constant factors, to be taken into
account in one's deliberations, when seeking to determine the conditions obtaining
in the field.
4. These are: (1) The Moral Law; (2) Heaven; (3) Earth; (4) The Commander; (5)
Method and discipline.
aIt appears from what follows that Sun Tzu means by "Moral Law" a
principle of harmony, not unlike the Tao of Lao Tzu in its moral aspect. One
might be tempted to render it by "morale," were it not considered
as an attribute of the ruler in ss. 13.i
5. The MORAL LAW causes the people to be in complete accord with their ruler,
so that they will follow him regardless of their lives, undismayed by any danger.
aTu Yu quotes Wang Tzu as saying: "Without constant practice, the officers
will be nervous and undecided when mustering for battle; without constant practice,
the general will be wavering and irresolute when the crisis is at hand."i
6. HEAVEN signifies night and day, cold and heat, times and seasons.
aThe commentators, I think, make an unnecessary mystery of two words here. Meng
Shih refers to "the hard and the soft, waxing and waning" of Heaven.
Wang Hsi, however, may be right in saying that what is meant is "the general
economy of Heaven," includi ng the five elements, the four seasons, wind
and clouds, and other phenomena.i
7. EARTH comprises distances, great and small; danger and security; open ground
and narrow passes; the chances of life and death.
8. The COMMANDER stands for the virtues of wisdom, sincerely, benevolence, courage
and strictness.
aThe five cardinal virtues of the Chinese are (1) humanity or benevolence; (2)
uprightness of mind; (3) self-respect, self-control, or "proper feeling;"
(4) wisdom; (5) sincerity or good faith. Here "wisdom" and "sincerity"
are put before "humanity or benevolence," and the two military virtues
of "courage" and "strictness" substituted for "uprightness
of mind" and "self-respect, self-control, or 'proper feeling.'"i
9. By METHOD AND DISCIPLINE are to be understood the marshaling of the army
in its proper subdivisions, the graduations of rank among the officers, the
maintenance of roads by which supplies may reach the army, and the control of
military expenditu re.
10. These five heads should be familiar to every general: he who knows them
will be victorious; he who knows them not will fail.
11. Therefore, in your deliberations, when seeking to determine the military
conditions, let them be made the basis of a comparison, in this wise: --
(a) Which of the two sovereigns is imbued with the Moral law? aI.e., "is
in harmony with his subjects." Cf. ss. 5.i
(b) Which of the two generals has most ability?
(c) With whom lie the advantages derived from Heaven and Earth? aSee ss. 7,8i
(d) On which side is discipline most rigorously enforced?
aTu Mu alludes to the remarkable story of Ts`ao Ts`ao (A.D. 155-220), who was