book in 1 3 chapters." 4 He goes on to remark that Ts'ao

Ts'ao's commentary on Sun Tzu leaves a certain proportion of difficulties unexplained. This, in Tu Mu's opinion, does not necessarily imply that he was unable to furnish a com- plete commentary. 5 According to the Wei Chih, Ts'ao himself wrote a book on war in something over 100,000 words, known as the ^ |J . It appears to have been of such exceptional merit that he suspects Ts'ao to have used for it the surplus material which he had found in Sun Tzu. He concludes, however, by saying: "The Hsin Shu is now lost, so that the truth cannot be known for certain." 6
Tu Mu's conjecture seems to be based on a passage
1 On the other hand, it is noteworthy that -* Wu Tzu, which is now in 6 chapters, has 48 assigned to it in the Han Chih. Likewise, the pt| m£ Chttng Yung is credited with 49 chapters, though now in one only. In the case of such very short works, one is tempted to think that jg|| might simply mean "leaves."
2 See T-u Shu, |g || M, ch. 442, j| ^ 2.
3 An extract will be found on p. xlv.
4 se % m 9 Ji m. -m w
1 r » ff I
XX INTRODUCTION
in the ^ |jf $$ §^ "Wei Wu Ti strung together Sun Wu's Art of War," l which in turn may have resulted from a misunderstanding of the final words of Ts'ao Kung's preface:
#fc ft 1S fl&H 1^ This> as Sun Hsing-yen points out,2 is only a modest way of saying that he made an explana- tory paraphrase, 3 or in other words, wrote a commentary on it. On the whole, the theory has met with very little acceptance. Thus, the (Jtj J|[ ^ |J says:4 "The mention of the 13 chapters in the Shih Chi shows that they were in existence before the Han Chih, and that later accretions are not to be considered part of the original work. Tu Mu's assertion can certainly not be taken as proof." 5
There is every reason to suppose, then, that the 13 chapters existed in the time of 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 WTar are the two books that people commonly refer to on the subject of military matters. Both of then are widely distributed, so I will not discuss them here." 6 But as we go further back, serious difficulties begin to arise. The salient fact which has to be faced is that the Tso Chuan, the great con- temporary record, makes no mention whatever of Sun
frlr Q
4
99,
INTRODUCTION XXI
W u^ either as a general or as a writer. It is natural, in view of this awkward circumstance, that many scholars should not only cast doubt on the story of Sun Wu as given in the Shih Chi, but even show themselves frankly sceptical as to the existence of the man at all. The most powerful presentment of this side of the case is to be found in the following disquisition by IPf ^(C Aj> Yeh Shui-hsin : l -
It is stated in Ssu-ma Ch'ien's history that Siin Wu was a native of the Ch'i State, and employed by Wu; and that in the^eign 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 Commen- tary need not contain absolutely everything that other histories contain. But Tso has not omitted to mention vulgar plebeians and hireling ruf- fians such as Ying K'ao-shu, a Ts'ao Kuei, 3 Chu Chih-wu 4 and Chuan She-chu. 5 In the case of Sun Wu, whose fame and achievements were so brilliant, the omission is much more glaring. Again, details are given, in their due order, about his contemporaries Wu Yuan and the Minister P'ei. 6 Is it credible that Sun Wu alone should have been passed over?7
In point of literary style, Sun Tzu's work belongs to the same school as Kuan Tzu,* the Liu T'ao,* and the Yueh Yu, 10 and may have
1 Yeh shih of the Sunsdynasty [1151—1223]. see
ch. 221, ff. 7, 8.
2 See Tso Chuan, [§ /£± , I. 3 ad fin. and XI. 3 ad init. He hardly deserves to be bracketed with assassins.
3 See pp. 66, 128.
* See Tso Chuan, fit ^ , XXX. 5.
5 See p. 128. Chuan Chu is the abbreviated form of his name.
6 7. e. Po Pcei. See ante.
m m z m
8 The nucleus of this work is probably genuine, though large additions have been made by later hands. Kuan Chung died in 645 B. C.
9 See infra, p. 1.
10 I do not know what work this is, unless it be the last chapter of the |||| =|^> . Why that chapter should be singled out, however, is not clear.
XXII INTRODUCTION
been the production of some private scholar living towards the end of the "Spring and Autumn" or the beginning of the "Warring States" period. » The story that his precepts were actually applied by the Wu State, is merely the outcome of big talk on the part of his followers. 2
From the flourishing period of the Chou dynasty 3 down to the time of the a 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" * that this custom changed. Now although Wu was an uncivilised State, is it conceivable that Tso should have left unrecorded the fact that Sun Wu was a great general and yet held no civil office? What we are told, therefore, about Jang-chu 5 and Sun Wu, is not authentic matter, but the reckless fabrication of theorising pundits. The story of Ho Lu's ex- periment on the women, in particular, is utterly preposterous and in- credible. 6
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; but the actual subject of the verbs $£ , A > M an^ II is certainly |ff) fjg , as is shown by the next words :
•^ •¥* H- ^ JJ M • 7 The fact may or may not t>e
significant; but it is nowhere explicitly stated in the Shih Chi either that Sun Tzti was general on the occasion of
' About 480 B. C.
'n^m^-^
*B %ilj ft A
That is, I suppose, the age of Wu Wang and Chou Rung.
4 In the 3rd century B. C.
5 Ssu-ma Jang-chu, whose family name was |JJ Tien, lived in the latter half of the 6th century B. C., and is also believed to have written a work on war. See Shih Chi, ch. 64, and infra, p. 1.
.
See the end of the passage quoted from the Shih Chi on
p. xii.
INTRODUCTION XXIII
the taking of Ying, or that he even went there at all. Moreover, as we know that Wu Yuan and Po Pcei both took part in the expedition, and also that its success was largely due to the dash and enterprise of ^ |f| 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.
$ft 1H 3& Ch'en Chen-sun of the Sung dynasty has the note : l —
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 Lii King of Wu, makes it uncertain what period he really belonged to. 2
He also says : — The works of Sun Wu and Wu Ch'i may be of genuine antiquity. 3
It is noticeable that both Yeh Shui-hsin and Ch'en Chen-sun, while rejecting the personality of Sun Wu as he figures in Ssu-ma Ch'ien's history, are inclined to ac- cept the date traditionally assigned to the work which passes under his name. The author of the Hsu Lu fails to appreciate this distinction, and consequently his bitter attack on Ch'en Chen-sun really misses its mark. He makes one or two points, however, which certainly tell in favour of the high antiquity of our "13 chapters." "Sun Tzu," he says, "must have lived in the age of Ching Wang [519—476], because he is frequently plagiarised in subsequent works of the Chou, Ch4n and Han dynasties." 4
1 In the ^jiL ^jJ£ jij# -9|j f a classified catalogue of his family library.
' See Win Hsien T'ung K'ao, eh. 221, 1. 9 r° : \£ £ =j & % jjflj ^
fi yn 4 it A x • li n ffi ? j& M .^- ii. ^''.M il if
Bf A-tfc-
3 See Hsu Lu, f. ,4 ,°
Here is a list of the passages in Sun Tzii from which
XXIV INTRODUCTION
The two most shameless offenders in this respect are Wu Chli 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 *§* ^3 Tseng Shen delivered the Tso Chuan, which had been entrusted to him by its author. l Now the fact that quotations from the Art of War, acknowledged or otherwise, are to be found in so many authors of different epochs, establishes a very strong probability that there was some common source anterior to them all, - - in other words, that Sun 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. 3 Again, it must not be forgotten that Yeh Shui-hsin, a scholar and critic of the first rank, deliberately pronounces the style of the 13 chapters to
either the substance or the actual words have been appropriated by early authors: