Section 2 of 17 - Table of Contents
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,
that seems to me quite untenable. If one thing is more apparent
than 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 artificially concocted in the
study. If we admit, then, that the 13 chapters were the genuine
production of a military man living towards the end of the "CH`UN
CH`IU" period, are we not bound, in spite of the silence of the
TSO CHUAN, to accept Ssu-ma Ch`ien's account in its entirety? In
view of his high repute as a sober historian, must we not
hesitate to assume that the records he drew upon for Sun Wu's
biography were false and untrustworthy? The answer, I fear, must
be in the negative. There is still one grave, if not fatal,
objection to the chronology involved in the story as told in the
SHIH CHI, which, so far as I am aware, nobody has yet pointed
out. There are two passages in Sun Tzu in which he alludes to
contemporary affairs. The first in 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 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 Yueh. So much has been observed by
Pi I-hsun. But what has hitherto escaped notice is that they
also seriously impair the credibility of Ssu-ma Ch`ien's
narrative. As we have seen above, the first positive date given
in connection with Sun Wu is 512 B.C. He is then spoken of as a
general, acting as confidential adviser to Ho Lu, so that his
alleged introduction to that monarch had already taken place, and
of course the 13 chapters must have been written earlier still.
But at that time, and for several years after, down to the
capture of Ying in 506, Ch`u and not Yueh, was the great
hereditary enemy of Wu. The two states, Ch`u and Wu, had been
constantly at war for over half a century, [31] whereas the first
war between Wu and Yueh was waged only in 510, [32] and even then
was no more than a short interlude sandwiched in the midst of the
fierce struggle with Ch`u. Now Ch`u is not mentioned in the 13
chapters at all. The natural inference is that they were written
at a time when 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.
B.C. |
|
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 the
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
seen the light between 496 and 494, or possibly in the period
482-473, when Yueh was once again becoming a very serious menace.
[33] We may feel fairly certain that the author, whoever he may
have been, was not a man of any great eminence in his own day.
On this point the negative testimony of the TSO CHUAN far
outweighs any shred of authority still attaching to the SHIH CHI,
if once its other facts are discredited. Sun Hsing-yen, however,
makes a feeble attempt to explain the omission of his name from
the great commentary. It was Wu 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. Hence, what more natural, as time went on, than that
the acknowledged master of strategy, Sun Wu, should be popularly
identified with that campaign, at first perhaps only in the sense
that his brain conceived and planned it; afterwards, that it was
actually carried out by him in conjunction with Wu Yuan, [34] Po
P`ei and Fu Kai?
It is obvious that any attempt to reconstruct even the
outline of Sun 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 gathered experience, though only in the capacity
of a subordinate officer, during the intense military activity
which marked the first half of the prince's reign. [35] If he
rose to be a general at all, he certainly was never on an equal
footing with the three above mentioned. He was doubtless present
at the investment and occupation of Ying, and witnessed Wu's
sudden collapse in the following year. Yueh's attack at this
critical juncture, when her rival was embarrassed on every side,
seems to have convinced him that this upstart kingdom was the
great enemy against whom every effort would henceforth have to be
directed. Sun Wu was thus a well-seasoned warrior when he sat
down to write his famous book, which according to my reckoning
must have appeared towards the end, rather than the beginning of
Ho Lu's reign. The story of the women may possibly have grown
out of some real incident occurring about the same time. As we
hear no more of Sun Wu after this from any source, he is hardly
likely to have survived his patron or to have taken part in the
death-struggle with 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
it that they were widely circulated in his day, and can only
regret that he refrained from discussing them on that account.
Sun Hsing-yen says in his preface: --
During the Ch`in and Han dynasties Sun Tzu's ART OF WAR
was in general use amongst military commanders, but they seem
to have treated it as a work of mysterious import, and were
unwilling to expound it for the benefit of posterity. Thus
it came about that Wei Wu was the first to write a commentary
on it.
As we have already seen, there is no reasonable ground to
suppose that Ts`ao Kung tampered with the text. But the text
itself is often so obscure, and the number of editions which
appeared from that time onward so great, especially during the
T`ang and Sung dynasties, that it would be surprising if numerous
corruptions had not managed to creep in. Towards the middle of
the Sung period, by which time all the chief commentaries on Sun
Tzu were in existence, a certain Chi T`ien-pao published a work
in 15 CHUAN 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 appears in the War section of the great
Imperial encyclopedia printed in 1726, the KU CHIN T`U SHU CHI
CH`ENG. Another copy at my disposal of what is practically the
same text, with slight variations, is that contained in the
"Eleven philosophers of the Chou and Ch`in dynasties" [1758].
And the Chinese printed in Capt. Calthrop's first edition is
evidently a similar version which has filtered through Japanese
channels. So things remained until Sun Hsing-yen [1752-1818], a
distinguished antiquarian and classical scholar, who claimed to
be an actual descendant of Sun Wu, [36] accidentally discovered a
copy of Chi T`ien-pao's long-lost work, when on a visit to the
library of the Hua-yin temple. [37] Appended to it was the I
SHUO of Cheng Yu-Hsien, mentioned in the T`UNG CHIH, and also
believed to have perished. This is what Sun Hsing-yen designates
as the "original edition (or text)" -- a rather misleading name,
for it cannot by any means claim to set before us the text of Sun
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 extant, one buried in the T`UNG TIEN,
Tu Yu's great treatise on the Constitution, the other similarly
enshrined in the T`AI P`ING YU LAN encyclopedia. In both the
complete text is to be found, though split up into fragments,
intermixed with other matter, and scattered piecemeal over a
number of different sections. Considering that the YU LAN takes
us back to the year 983, and the T`UNG TIEN about 200 years
further still, to the middle of the T`ang dynasty, the value of
these early transcripts of Sun 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 instructions,
undertook a thorough recension of the text. This is his own
account: --
Because of the numerous mistakes in the text of Sun Tzu
which his editors had handed down, the Government ordered
that the ancient edition [of Chi T`ien-pao] should be used,
and that the text should be revised and corrected throughout.
It happened that Wu Nien-hu, the Governor Pi Kua, and Hsi, a
graduate of the second degree, had all devoted themselves to
this study, probably surpassing me therein. Accordingly, I
have had the whole work cut on blocks as a textbook for
military men.
The three individuals here referred to had evidently been
occupied on the text of Sun 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, appeared in the names of Sun Hsing-yen and only one co-
editor Wu Jen-shi. They took the "original edition" as their
basis, and by careful comparison with older versions, as well as
the extant commentaries and other sources of information such as
the I SHUO, succeeded in restoring a very large number of
doubtful passages, and turned out, on the whole, what must be
accepted as the closes approximation we are ever likely to get to
Sun Tzu's original work. This is what will hereafter be
denominated the "standard text."
The copy which I have used belongs to a reissue dated 1877.
it is in 6 PEN, forming part of a well-printed set of 23 early
philosophical works in 83 PEN. [38] It opens with a preface by
Sun Hsing-yen (largely quoted in this introduction), vindicating
the traditional view of Sun 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
above. Then come, firstly, Cheng Yu-hsien's I SHUO, [39] with
author's preface, and next, a short miscellany of historical and
bibliographical information entitled SUN TZU HSU LU, compiled by
Pi I-hsun. As regards the body of the work, each separate
sentence is followed by a note on the text, if required, and then
by the various commentaries appertaining to it, arranged in
chronological order. These we shall now proceed to discuss
briefly, one by one.
Prev
Next
All
Printer Friendly Version | Send this page to a friend | Discuss this Book
Your email address is safe with us. View our Privacy policy.
ArcaMax Dating
