Referat SUN TZU - The Art Of War
Mai jos puteti citi fragmente din
Referat SUN TZU - The Art Of War si de asemenea puteti face
Download Referat SUN TZU - The art of warCiteste fragmente din Referat SUN TZU - The Art Of War
Introduction: Sun Wu and His Book
Ssu-ma Ch`ien gives the following biography of Sun Tzu: [1]
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, [2] 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." [3] 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 [512 BC] Ho Lu, king of Wu,
took the field with Tzu-hsu [i.e. Wu Yuan] 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
[the capital]; but the general Sun Wu said: "The army is exhausted. It
is not yet possible. We must wait".... [After further successful
fighting ,] "in the ninth year [506 BC], 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, [4] 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, [beat Ch`u in five pitched battles and marched into Ying.] [5]
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: [6] -- From this time
onward, a number of famous soldiers arose, one after the other: Kao-fan,
[7] who was employed by the Chin State; Wang-tzu, [8] 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 [547-490 BC]. 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. [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 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 [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 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. [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 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: [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 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,
[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 un til 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, t herefore, 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 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 [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 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.
[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 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. [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 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,
[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.
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. [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 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, [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 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.
[35] 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" [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 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 [of Chi T`ien-pao] 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. [38] 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, [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 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 [A.D. 155-220].
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. [40]
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,
[41] but this is a mistake. In Sun Hsing-yen s preface, he appears as
Meng Shih of the Liang dynasty [502-557]. 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. [42] 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, [43] nor with the nine
punitive measures prescribed to the Minister of War. [44]
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.
[45]
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." [46]
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 [Chao] Yuan-hao s rebellion came [1038-42] 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. [47]
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;
[48] 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.), [49] Feng I (d. 34 A.D.), [50] Lu Meng (d. 219), [51] and Yo Fei
(1103-1141). [52] The opinion of Ts`ao Kung, who disputes with Han Hsin
the highest place in Chinese military annals, has already been recorded.
[53]
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:
[54] -- Sun Wu s saying, that in war one cannot make certain of
conquering, [55] is very different indeed from what other books tell us.
[56] 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, [57] 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. [58]
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." [59] "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, [60] he
sallied forth and chastised them. When Confucius held office under the
Duke of Lu, and a meeting was convened at Chia-ku, [61] 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." [62] 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." [63] And Jan Yu also said:
"The Sage exercises both civil and military functions." [64] 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." [65] 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,
[66] 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, [67] 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. [68] Weapons are baneful [69] and fighting
perilous; and useless unless a general is in constant practice, he ought
not to hazard other men s lives in battle. [70] Hence it is essential
that Sun Tzu s 13 chapters shoul d be studied.
Hsiang Liang used to instruct his nephew Chi [71] 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, [72] and also of his having left the Sung State in
disguise. [73] Can we then recklessly arraign Sun Tzu for disregarding
truth and honesty?
Chapter I. LAYING PLANS
[Ts`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.]
Sun Tzu said: The art of war is of vital importance to the State.
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.
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.
These are: (1) The Moral Law; (2) Heaven; (3) Earth; (4) The Commander;
(5) Method and discipline.
[It 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.]
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.
[Tu 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."]
HEAVEN signifies night and day, cold and heat, times and seasons.
[The 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.]
EARTH comprises distances, great and small; danger and security; open
ground and narrow passes; the chances of life and death.
The COMMANDER stands for the virtues of wisdom, sincerely, benevolence,
courage and strictness.
[The 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. "]
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.
These five heads should be familiar to every general: he who knows them
will be victorious; he who knows them not will fail.
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? [I.e., "is
in harmony with his subjects." Cf. ss. 5.]
(b) Which of the two generals has most ability?
(c) With whom lie the advantages derived from Heaven and Earth? [See ss.
7,8]
(d) On which side is discipline most rigorously enforced?
[Tu Mu alludes to the remarkable story of Ts`ao Ts`ao (A.D. 155-220),
who was such a strict disciplinarian that once, in accordance with his
own severe regulations against injury to standing crops, he condemned
himself to death for having allowed him horse to shy into a field of
corn! However, in lieu of losing his head, he was persuaded to satisfy
his sense of justice by cutting off his hair. Ts`ao Ts`ao s own comment
on the present passage is characteristically curt: "when you lay down a
law, s ee that it is not disobeyed; if it is disobeyed the offender must
be put to death."]
(e) Which army is stronger? [Morally as well as physically. As Mei
Yao-ch`en puts it, freely rendered, "ESPIRIT DE CORPS and big
battalions. "]
(f) On which side are officers and men more highly trained?
[Tu 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."]
(g) In which army is there the greater constancy both in reward and
punishment? [On which side is there the most absolute certainty that
merit will be properly rewarded and misdeeds summarily punished?]
By means of these seven considerations I can forecast victory or defeat.
The general that hearkens to my counsel and acts upon it, will conquer:
--let such a one be retained in command! The general that hearkens not
to my counsel nor acts upon it, will suffer defeat: --let such a one be
dismissed! [The form of this paragraph reminds us that Sun Tzu s
treatise was composed expressly for the benefit of his patron Ho Lu,
king of the Wu State.]
While heading the profit of my counsel, avail yourself also of any
helpful circumstances over and beyond the ordinary rules.
According as circumstances are favorable, one should modify one s plans.
[Sun Tzu, as a practical soldier, will have none of the "bookish
theoric." He cautions us here not to pin our faith to abstract
principles; "for," as Chang Yu puts it, "while the main laws of strategy
can be stated clearly enough for the benefit of all and sundry, you must
be guided by the actions of the enemy in attempting to secure a
favorable position in actual warfare." On the eve of the battle of
Waterloo, Lord Uxbridge, commanding the cavalry, went to the Duke of
Wellington in order to learn wha t his plans and calculations were for
the morrow, because, as he explained, he might suddenly find himself
Commander-in-chief and would be unable to frame new plans in a critical
moment. The Duke listened quietly and then said: "Who will attack the
fir st tomorrow -- I or Bonaparte?" "Bonaparte," replied Lord Uxbridge.
"Well," continued the Duke, "Bonaparte has not given me any idea of his
projects; and as my plans will depend upon his, how can you expect me to
tell you what mine are?" [1] ]
All warfare is based on deception.
[The truth of this pithy and profound saying will be admitted by every
soldier. Col. Henderson tells us that Wellington, great in so many
military qualities, was especially distinguished by "the extraordinary
skill with which he concealed his movemen ts and deceived both friend
and foe."]
Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces,
we must seem inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe
we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near.
Hold out baits to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and crush him.
[All commentators, except Chang Yu, say, "When he is in disorder, crush
him." It is more natural to suppose that Sun Tzu is still illustrating
the uses of deception in war.]
If he is secure at all points, be prepared for him. If he is in superior
strength, evade him.
If your opponent is of choleric temper, seek to irritate him. Pretend to
be weak, that he may grow arrogant.
[Wang Tzu, quoted by Tu Yu, says that the good tactician plays with his
adversary as a cat plays with a mouse, first feigning weakness and
immobility, and then suddenly pouncing upon him.]
If he is takin
