The Art of War | Page 6

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