The Art of War | Page 5

to the "13 chapters,"
is good proof, Pi I-hsun thinks, that all of these were contained in the
82 P`IEN. Without pinning our faith to the accuracy of details supplied
by the WU YUEH CH`UN CH`IU, or admitting the genuineness of any
of the treatises cited by Pi I-hsun, we may see in this theory a probable
solution of the mystery. Between Ssu-ma Ch`ien and Pan Ku there was
plenty of time for a luxuriant crop of forgeries to have grown up under
the magic name of Sun Tzu, and the 82 P`IEN may very well represent
a collected edition of these lumped together with the original work. It is
also possible, though less likely, that some of them existed in the time
of the earlier historian and were purposely ignored by him. [16] Tu
Mu's conjecture seems to be based on a passage which states: "Wei Wu
Ti strung together Sun Wu's Art of War," which in turn may have
resulted from a misunderstanding of the final words of Ts`ao King's
preface. This, as Sun Hsing-yen points out, is only a modest way of

saying that he made an explanatory paraphrase, or in other words,
wrote a commentary on it. On the whole, this theory has met with very
little acceptance. Thus, the SSU K`U CH`UAN SHU says: "The
mention of the 13 chapters in the SHIH CHI shows that they were in
existence before the HAN CHIH, and that latter accretions are not to be
considered part of the original work. Tu Mu's assertion can certainly
not be taken as proof." There is every reason to suppose, then, that the
13 chapters existed in the time of Ssu-ma Ch`ien practically as we have
them now. That the work was then well known he tells us in so many
words. "Sun Tzu's 13 Chapters and Wu Ch`i's Art of War are the two
books that people commonly refer to on the subject of military matters.
Both of them are widely distributed, so I will not discuss them here."
But as we go further back, serious difficulties begin to arise. The salient
fact which has to be faced is that the TSO CHUAN, the greatest
contemporary record, makes no mention whatsoever of Sun Wu, either
as a general or as a writer. It is natural, in view of this awkward
circumstance, that many scholars should not only cast doubt on the
story of Sun Wu as given in the SHIH CHI, but even show themselves
frankly skeptical as to the existence of the man at all. The most
powerful presentment of this side of the case is to be found in the
following disposition by Yeh Shui-hsin: [17] --
It is stated in Ssu-ma Ch`ien's history that Sun Wu was a native of the
Ch`i State, and employed by Wu; and that in the reign of Ho Lu he
crushed Ch`u, entered Ying, and was a great general. But in Tso's
Commentary no Sun Wu appears at all. It is true that Tso's
Commentary need not contain absolutely everything that other histories
contain. But Tso has not omitted to mention vulgar plebeians and
hireling ruffians such as Ying K`ao-shu, [18] Ts`ao Kuei, [19], Chu
Chih-wu and Chuan She-chu [20]. In the case of Sun Wu, whose fame
and achievements were so brilliant, the omission is much more glaring.
Again, details are given, in their due order, about his contemporaries
Wu Yuan and the Minister P`ei. [21] Is it credible that Sun Wu alone
should have been passed over? In point of literary style, Sun Tzu's
work belongs to the same school as KUAN TZU, [22] LIU T`AO, [23]
and the YUEH YU [24] and may have been the production of some
private scholar living towards the end of the "Spring and Autumn" or

the beginning of the "Warring States" period. [25] The story that his
precepts were actually applied by the Wu State, is merely the outcome
of big talk on the part of his followers. From the flourishing period of
the Chou dynasty [26] down to the time of the "Spring and Autumn,"
all military commanders were statesmen as well, and the class of
professional generals, for conducting external campaigns, did not then
exist. It was not until the period of the "Six States" [27] that this custom
changed. Now although Wu was an uncivilized State, it is conceivable
that Tso should have left unrecorded the fact that Sun Wu was a great
general and yet held no civil office? What we are told, therefore, about
Jang-chu [28] and Sun Wu, is not authentic matter, but the reckless
fabrication of theorizing pundits. The story of Ho Lu's experiment on
the women, in particular, is utterly preposterous and incredible.
Yeh Shui-hsin represents Ssu-ma Ch`ien as having said that Sun Wu
crushed Ch`u