undisciplined."
Teng Ming-shih informs us that the surname "Sun" was
bestowed on Sun Wu's grandfather by Duke Ching of Ch`i [547-490
B.C.]. Sun Wu's father Sun P`ing, rose to be a Minister of State
in Ch`i, and Sun Wu himself, whose style was Ch`ang-ch`ing, fled
to Wu on account of the rebellion which was being fomented by the
kindred of T`ien Pao. He had three sons, of whom the second,
named Ming, was the father of Sun Pin. According to this account
then, Pin was the grandson of Wu, which, considering that Sun
Pin's victory over Wei was gained in 341 B.C., may be dismissed
as 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. [10] 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 [11] on the one hand and Yen
Wang on the other. [12] In military matters, the Sage's rule
is normally to keep the peace, and to move his forces only
when occasion requires. He will not use armed force unless
driven to it by necessity.
Many books have I read on the subject of war and
fighting; but the work composed by Sun Wu is the profoundest
of them all. [Sun 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.] [13] In his treatment of deliberation
and planning, the importance of rapidity in taking the field,
[14] clearness of conception, and depth of design, Sun Tzu
stands beyond the reach of carping criticism. My
contemporaries, however, have failed to grasp the full
meaning of his instructions, and while putting into practice
the smaller details in which his work abounds, they have
overlooked its essential purport. That is the motive which
has led me to outline a rough explanation of the whole.
One thing to be noticed in the above is the explicit
statement that the 13 chapters were specially composed for King
Ho Lu. This is supported by the internal evidence of I. 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
Ssu-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 [15] is
preserved in the T`UNG TIEN, and another in Ho Shin's commentary.
It is suggested that before his interview with Ho Lu, Sun 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 see in this theory a probable solution of the
mystery. Between Ssu-ma Ch`ien and Pan Ku there was plenty of
time for a luxuriant crop of forgeries to have grown up under the
magic name of Sun 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. [16]
Tu Mu's conjecture seems to be based on a passage which
states: "Wei Wu Ti strung together Sun Wu's Art of War," which
in turn may have resulted from a misunderstanding of the final
words of Ts`ao King's preface. This, as Sun Hsing-yen points
out, is only a modest way of saying that he made an explanatory
paraphrase, or in other words, wrote a commentary on it. On the
whole, this theory has met with very little acceptance. Thus,
the SSU K`U CH`UAN SHU says: "The mention of the 13 chapters in
the SHIH CHI shows that they were in existence before the HAN
CHIH, and that latter accretions are not to be considered part of
the original work. Tu Mu's assertion can certainly not be taken
as proof."
There is every reason to suppose, then, that the 13 chapters
existed in the time of Ssu-ma Ch`ien practically as we have them
now. That the work was then well known he tells us in so many
words. "Sun Tzu's 13 Chapters and Wu Ch`i's Art of War are the
two books that people commonly refer to on the subject of
military matters. Both of them are widely distributed, so I will
not discuss them here." But as we go further back, serious
difficulties begin to arise. The salient fact which has to be
faced is that the TSO CHUAN, the greatest contemporary record,
makes no mention whatsoever of Sun Wu, either as a general or as
a writer. It is natural, in view of this awkward circumstance,
that many scholars should not only cast doubt on the story of Sun
Wu as given in the SHIH CHI, but even show themselves frankly
skeptical as to the existence of the man at all. The most
powerful presentment of this side of the case is to be found in
the following disposition by Yeh Shui-hsin: [17] --
It is stated in Ssu-ma Ch`ien's history that Sun Wu was
a native of the Ch`i State, and employed by Wu; and that in
the reign of Ho Lu he crushed Ch`u, entered Ying, and was a
great general. But in Tso's Commentary no Sun Wu appears at
all. It is true that Tso's Commentary need not contain
absolutely everything that other histories contain. But Tso
has not omitted to mention vulgar plebeians and hireling
ruffians such as Ying K`ao-shu, [18] Ts`ao Kuei, [19], Chu
Chih-wu and Chuan She-chu [20]. In the case of Sun Wu, whose
fame and achievements were so brilliant, the omission is much
more glaring. Again, details are given, in their due order,
about his contemporaries Wu Yuan and the Minister P`ei. [21]
Is it credible that Sun Wu alone should have been passed
over?
In point of literary style, Sun Tzu's work belongs to
the same school as KUAN TZU, [22] LIU T`AO, [23] and the YUEH
YU [24] and may have been the production of some private
scholar living towards the end of the "Spring and Autumn" or
the beginning of the "Warring States" period. [25] The story
that his precepts were actually applied by the Wu State, is
merely the outcome of big talk on the part of his followers.
From the flourishing period of the Chou dynasty [26]
down to the time of the "Spring and Autumn," all military
commanders were statesmen as well, and the class of
professional generals, for conducting external campaigns, did
not then exist. It was not until the period of the "Six
States" [27] that this custom changed. Now although Wu was
an uncivilized State, it is conceivable that Tso should have
left unrecorded the fact that Sun Wu was a great general and
yet held no civil office? What we are told, therefore, about
Jang-chu [28] and Sun Wu, is not authentic matter, but the
reckless fabrication of theorizing pundits. The story of Ho
Lu's experiment on the women, in particular, is utterly
preposterous and incredible.
Yeh Shui-hsin represents Ssu-ma Ch`ien as having said that
Sun Wu crushed Ch`u and entered Ying. This is not quite correct.
No doubt the impression left on the reader's mind is that he at
least shared in these exploits. The fact may or may not be
significant; but it is nowhere explicitly stated in the SHIH CHI
either that Sun 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 period he really belonged to.
He also says: --
The works of Sun Wu and Wu Ch`i may be of genuine
antiquity.
It is noticeable that both Yeh Shui-hsin and Ch`en Chen-sun,
while rejecting the personality of Sun Wu as he figures in Ssu-ma
Ch`ien's history, are inclined to accept the date traditionally
assigned to the work which passes under his name. The author of
the HSU LU fails to appreciate this distinction, and consequently
his bitter attack on Ch`en Chen-sun really misses its mark. He
makes one of two points, however, which certainly tell in favor
of the high antiquity of our "13 chapters." "Sun Tzu," he says,
"must have lived in the age of Ching Wang [519-476], because he
is frequently plagiarized in subsequent works of the Chou, Ch`in
and Han dynasties." The two most shameless offenders in this
respect are Wu Ch`i and Huai-nan Tzu, both of them important
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 B.C. It was to him, according to Liu
Hsiang, that Tseng Shen delivered the TSO CHUAN, which had been
entrusted to him by its author. [29] Now the fact that
quotations from the ART OF WAR, acknowledged or otherwise, are to
be found in so many authors of different epochs, establishes a
very strong anterior to them all, -- in other words, that Sun
Tzu's treatise was already in existence towards the end of the
5th century B.C. 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 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. 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. [30] 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 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 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
immediately following 473 is particularly unlikely, for no one,
as a rule, hastens to identify himself with a lost cause. As for
Yeh Shui-hsin's theory, that the author was a literary recluse,
