The Art of War by Zi Sun (recommended ebook reader .TXT) 📕

be considered part of the original work. Tu Mu's assertion can certainly not be taken as proof." There is every reason to suppose, then, that the 13 chapters existed in the time of Ssu-ma Ch`ien practically as we have them now. That the work was then well known he tells us in so many words. "Sun Tzu's 13 Chapters and Wu Ch`i's Art of War are the two books that people commonly refer to on the subject of military matters. Both of them are widely distributed, so I will not discuss them here." But as we go further back, serious difficulties begin to arise. The salient fact which has to be faced is that the TSO CHUAN, the greatest contemporary record, makes no mention whatsoever of Sun Wu, either as a general or as a writer. It is natural, in view of this awkward circumstance, that many scholars should not only cast doubt on the story of Sun Wu as given in the SHIH CHI, but even show themselves frankly skeptical as to the existence of the man at all. The most powerful presentment of this side of the case is to be found in the following disposition by Yeh Shui-hsin: [17] —

       It is stated in Ssu-ma Ch`ien's history that Sun Wu was
  a native of the Ch`i State, and employed by Wu; and that in
  the reign of Ho Lu he crushed Ch`u, entered Ying, and was a
  great general. But in Tso's Commentary no Sun Wu appears at
  all. It is true that Tso's Commentary need not contain
  absolutely everything that other histories contain. But Tso
  has not omitted to mention vulgar plebeians and hireling
  ruffians such as Ying K`ao-shu, [18] Ts`ao Kuei, [19], Chu
  Chih-wu and Chuan She-chu [20]. In the case of Sun Wu, whose
  fame and achievements were so brilliant, the omission is much
  more glaring. Again, details are given, in their due order,
  about his contemporaries Wu Yuan and the Minister P`ei. [21]
  Is it credible that Sun Wu alone should have been passed
  over?
       In point of literary style, Sun Tzu's work belongs to
  the same school as KUAN TZU, [22] LIU T`AO, [23] and the YUEH
  YU [24] and may have been the production of some private
  scholar living towards the end of the "Spring and Autumn" or
  the beginning of the "Warring States" period. [25] The story
  that his precepts were actually applied by the Wu State, is
  merely the outcome of big talk on the part of his followers.
       From the flourishing period of the Chou dynasty [26]
  down to the time of the "Spring and Autumn," all military
  commanders were statesmen as well, and the class of
  professional generals, for conducting external campaigns, did
  not then exist. It was not until the period of the "Six
  States" [27] that this custom changed. Now although Wu was
  an uncivilized State, it is conceivable that Tso should have
  left unrecorded the fact that Sun Wu was a great general and
  yet held no civil office? What we are told, therefore, about
  Jang-chu [28] and Sun Wu, is not authentic matter, but the
  reckless fabrication of theorizing pundits. The story of Ho
  Lu's experiment on the women, in particular, is utterly
  preposterous and incredible.

Yeh Shui-hsin represents Ssu-ma Ch`ien as having said that Sun Wu crushed Ch`u and entered Ying. This is not quite correct. No doubt the impression left on the reader's mind is that he at least shared in these exploits. The fact may or may not be significant; but it is nowhere explicitly stated in the SHIH CHI either that Sun Tzu was general on the occasion of the taking of Ying, or that he even went there at all. Moreover, as we know that Wu Yuan and Po P`ei both took part in the expedition, and also that its success was largely due to the dash and enterprise of Fu Kai, Ho Lu's younger brother, it is not easy to see how yet another general could have played a very prominent part in the same campaign. Ch`en Chen-sun of the Sung dynasty has the note: —

Military writers look upon Sun Wu as the father of their art. But the fact that he does not appear in the TSO CHUAN, although he is said to have served under Ho Lu King of Wu, makes it uncertain what period he really belonged to.

He also says: —

The works of Sun Wu and Wu Ch`i may be of genuine antiquity.

It is noticeable that both Yeh Shui-hsin and Ch`en Chen-sun, while rejecting the personality of Sun Wu as he figures in Ssu-ma Ch`ien's history, are inclined to accept the date traditionally assigned to the work which passes under his name. The author of the HSU LU fails to appreciate this distinction, and consequently his bitter attack on Ch`en Chen-sun really misses its mark. He makes one of two points, however, which certainly tell in favor of the high antiquity of our "13 chapters." "Sun Tzu," he says, "must have lived in the age of Ching Wang [519-476], because he is frequently plagiarized in subsequent works of the Chou, Ch`in and Han dynasties." The two most shameless offenders in this respect are Wu Ch`i and Huai-nan Tzu, both of them important historical personages in their day. The former lived only a century after the alleged date of Sun Tzu, and his death is known to have taken place in 381 B.C. It was to him, according to Liu Hsiang, that Tseng Shen delivered the TSO CHUAN, which had been entrusted to him by its author. [29] Now the fact that quotations from the ART OF WAR, acknowledged or otherwise, are to be found in so many authors of different epochs, establishes a very strong anterior to them all, — in other words, that Sun Tzu's treatise was already in existence towards the end of the 5th century B.C. Further proof of Sun Tzu's antiquity is furnished by the archaic or wholly