探花 porn Sun Tzŭ on the Art of War | Project Gutenberg

To my brother Captain Valentine Giles探花 porn， R.G. in the hope that a work 2400 years old may yet contain lessons worth consideration by the soldier of to-day this translation is affectionately dedicated

Page Preface vii Introduction Sun Wu and his Book xi The Text of Sun Tzŭ xxx The Commentators xxxiv Appreciations of Sun Tzŭ xlii Apologies for War xliii Bibliography l Chap.I.Laying Plans1 „II.Waging War9 „III.Attack by Stratagem17 „IV.Tactical Dispositions26 „V.Energy33 „VI.Weak Points and Strong42 „VII.Manœuvring55 „VIII.Variation of Tactics 71 „IX.The Army on the March80 „X.Terrain100 „XI.The Nine Situations114 „XII.The Attack by Fire150 „XIII.The Use of Spies160 Chinese Concordance 176 Index 192

The seventh volume of “Mémoires concernant l’histoire， les sciences， les arts， les mœurs， les usages， &c.， des Chinois”[1] is devoted to the Art of War， and contains， amongst other treatises， “Les Treize Articles de Sun-tse，” translated from the Chinese by a Jesuit Father， Joseph Amiot. Père Amiot appears to have enjoyed no small reputation as a sinologue in his day， and the field of his labours was certainly extensive. But his so-called translation of Sun Tzŭ， if placed side by side with the original， is seen at once to be little better than an imposture. It contains a great deal that Sun Tzŭ did not write， and very little indeed of what he did. Here is a fair specimen， taken from the opening sentences of chapter 5:—

Throughout the nineteenth century， which saw a wonderful development in the study of Chinese literature， no translator ventured to tackle Sun Tzŭ， although his work was known to be highly valued in China as by far the{VIII} oldest and best compendium of military science. It was not until the year 1905 that the first English translation， by Capt. E. F. Calthrop， R.F.A.， appeared at Tokyo under the title “Sonshi” (the Japanese form of Sun Tzŭ)[2]. Unfortunately， it was evident that the translator’s knowledge of Chinese was far too scanty to fit him to grapple with the manifold difficulties of Sun Tzŭ. He himself plainly acknowledges that without the aid of two Japanese gentlemen “the accompanying translation would have been impossible.” We can only wonder， then， that with their help it should have been so excessively bad. It is not merely a question of downright blunders， from which none can hope to be wholly exempt. Omissions were frequent; hard passages were wilfully distorted or slurred over. Such offences are less pardonable. They would not be tolerated in any edition of a Greek or Latin classic， and a similar standard of honesty ought to be insisted upon in translations from Chinese.

From blemishes of this nature， at least， I believe that the present translation is free. It was not undertaken out of any inflated estimate of my own powers; but I could not help feeling that Sun Tzŭ deserved a better fate than had befallen him， and I knew that， at any rate， I could hardly fail to improve on the work of my predecessors. Towards the end of 1908， a new and revised edition of Capt. Calthrop’s translation was published in London， this time， however， without any allusion to his Japanese collaborators. My first three chapters were then already in the printer’s hands， so that the criticisms of Capt. Calthrop therein contained must be understood as referring to his earlier edition. In the subsequent chapters I have of course transferred my attention to the second edition. This is on the whole an improvement on the other， though there still remains much that cannot pass{IX} muster. Some of the grosser blunders have been rectified and lacunae filled up， but on the other hand a certain number of new mistakes appear. The very first sentence of the introduction is startlingly inaccurate; and later on， while mention is made of “an army of Japanese commentators” on Sun Tzŭ (who are these， by the way?)， not a word is vouchsafed about the Chinese commentators， who nevertheless， I venture to assert， form a much more numerous and infinitely more important “army.”

A few special features of the present volume may now be noticed. In the first place， the text has been cut up into numbered paragraphs， both in order to facilitate cross-reference and for the convenience of students generally. The division follows broadly that of Sun Hsing-yen’s edition; but I have sometimes found it desirable to join two or more of his paragraphs into one. In quoting from other works， Chinese writers seldom give more than the bare title by way of reference， and the task of research is apt to be seriously hampered in consequence. With a view to obviating this difficulty so far as Sun Tzŭ is concerned， I have also appended a complete concordance of Chinese characters， following in this the admirable example of Legge， though an alphabetical arrangement has been preferred to the distribution under radicals which he adopted. Another feature borrowed from “The Chinese Classics” is the printing of text， translation and notes on the same page; the notes， however， are inserted， according to the Chinese method， immediately after the passages to which they refer. From the mass of native commentary my aim has been to extract the cream only， adding the Chinese text here and there when it seemed to present points of literary interest. Though constituting in itself an important branch of Chinese literature， very little commentary of this kind has hitherto been made directly accessible by translation.[3]

X

I may say in conclusion that， owing to the printing off of my sheets as they were completed， the work has not had the benefit of a final revision. On a review of the whole， without modifying the substance of my criticisms， I might have been inclined in a few instances to temper their asperity. Having chosen to wield a bludgeon， however， I shall not cry out if in return I am visited with more than a rap over the knuckles. Indeed， I have been at some pains to put a sword into the hands of future opponents by scrupulously giving either text or reference for every passage translated. A scathing review， even from the pen of the Shanghai critic who despises “mere translations，” would not， I must confess， be altogether unwelcome. For， after all， the worst fate I shall have to dread is that which befell the ingenious paradoxes of George in The Vicar of Wakefield.

Sun Wu and his Book.

Ssŭ-ma Ch‘ien gives the following biography of Sun Tzŭ:[4]—

About Sun Tzŭ himself this is all that Ssŭ-ma Ch‘ien has to tell us in this chapter. But he proceeds to give a biography of his descendant， 孫臏 Sun Pin， born about a hundred years after his famous ancestor’s death， and also the outstanding military genius of his time. The historian speaks of him too as Sun Tzŭ， and in his preface we read: 孫子臏脚而論兵法 “Sun Tzŭ had his feet cut off and yet continued to discuss the art of war.”[6] It seems likely， then， that “Pin” was a nickname bestowed on him after his mutilation， unless indeed 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 Chüan， will be found briefly related on p. 40.

{XIII}

To return to the elder Sun Tzŭ. He is mentioned in two other passages of the Shih Chi:—

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 the chapter entitled 律書 (the earlier portion of which M. Chavannes believes to be a fragment of a treatise on Military Weapons)， there occurs this passage:[11]

{XIV}

It is obvious that Ssŭ-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 necessary， therefore， to say much of such a work as the 吳越春秋 Wu Yüeh Ch‘un Ch‘iu， which is supposed to have been written by 趙曄 Chao Yeh of the 1st century A.D. 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 Tzŭ will be found， for what it is worth， in chapter 2. The only new points in it worth noting are: 1) Sun Tzŭ was first recommended to Ho Lu by Wu Tzŭ-hsü. 2) He is called a native of Wu.[14] 3) He had previously lived a retired life， and his contemporaries were unaware of his ability.[15]

The following passage occurs in 淮南子 Huai-nan Tzŭ: “When sovereign and ministers show perversity of mind， it is impossible even for a Sun Tzŭ to encounter the foe.”[16] Assuming that this work is genuine (and hitherto no doubt has been cast upon it)， we have here the earliest direct reference to Sun Tzŭ， for Huai-nan Tzŭ died in 122 B.C.， many years before the Shih Chi was given to the world.

劉向 Liu Hsiang (B.C. 80–9) in his 新序 says: “The reason why Sun Wu at the head of 30，000 men beat{XV} Ch‘u with 200，000 is that the latter were undisciplined.”[17]

鄧名世 Têng Ming-shih in his 姓氏辨證書 (completed in 1134) informs us that the surname 孫 was bestowed on Sun Wu’s grandfather by 景公 Duke Ching of Ch‘i [547–490 B.C.]. Sun Wu’s father Sun 馮 P‘ing， rose to be a Minister of State in Ch‘i， and Sun Wu himself， whose style was 長卿 Ch‘ang-ch‘ing， fled to Wu on account of the rebellion which was being fomented by the kindred of 田鮑 T‘ien Pao. He had three sons， of whom the second， named 明 Ming， was the father of Sun Pin. According to this account， then， Pin was the grandson of Wu，[18] which， considering that Sun Pin’s victory over 魏 Wei was gained in 341 B.C.， may be dismissed as chronologically impossible. Whence these data were obtained by Têng 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 曹操 Ts‘ao Ts‘ao， or 魏武帝 Wei Wu Ti， for his edition of Sun Tzŭ. I shall give it in full:—

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. § 15， in which it seems clear that some ruler is addressed.

In the bibliographical section of the Han Shu，[31] there is an entry which has given rise to much discussion: 吳孫子八十二篇圖九卷 “The works of Sun Tzŭ of Wu in 82 p‘ien (or chapters)， with diagrams in 9 chüan.” It is evident that this cannot be merely the 13 chapters known to Ssŭ-ma Ch‘ien， or those we possess to-day. Chang Shou-chieh in his 史記正義 refers to an edition of Sun Tzŭ’s 兵法 of which the “13 chapters” formed the first chüan， adding that there were two other chüan besides.[32] This has brought forth a theory， that the bulk of these 82 chapters consisted of other writings of Sun Tzŭ—we should call them apocryphal—similar to the 問答 Wên Ta， of which a specimen dealing with the Nine Situations[33] is preserved in the 通典 T‘ung Tien， and another in Ho Shih’s commentary. It is suggested{XVIII} that before his interview with Ho Lu， Sun Tzŭ 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. 畢以珣 Pi I-hsün， author of the 孫子敘錄 Sun Tzŭ Hsü Lu， backs this up with a quotation from the Wu Yüeh Ch‘un Ch‘iu: “The King of Wu summoned Sun Tzŭ， 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.”[34] 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.[35] Then the numerous other treatises attributed to Sun Tzŭ[36] might also be included. The fact that the Han Chih mentions no work of Sun Tzŭ 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-hsün 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 Yüeh Ch‘un Ch‘iu， or admitting the genuineness of any of the treatises cited by Pi I-hsün， we may see in this theory a probable solution of the mystery. Between Ssŭ-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 Tzŭ， and the 82 p‘ien may very well represent a collected edition of these lumped together with the original work.{XIX} 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.[37]

Tu Mu， after Ts‘ao Kung the most important commentator on Sun Tzŭ， composed the preface to his edition[38] about the middle of the ninth century. After a somewhat lengthy defence of the military art，[39] he comes at last to Sun Tzŭ himself， and makes one or two very startling assertions:—“The writings of Sun Wu，” he says， “originally comprised several hundred thousand words， but Ts‘ao Ts‘ao， the Emperor Wu Wei， pruned away all redundancies and wrote out the essence of the whole， so as to form a single book in 13 chapters.”[40] He goes on to remark that Ts‘ao Ts‘ao’s commentary on Sun Tzŭ leaves a certain proportion of difficulties unexplained. This， in Tu Mu’s opinion， does not necessarily imply that he was unable to furnish a complete commentary.[41] According to the Wei Chih， Ts‘ao himself wrote a book on war in something over 100，000 words， known as the 新書. 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 Tzŭ. He concludes， however， by saying: “The Hsin Shu is now lost， so that the truth cannot be known for certain.”[42]

Tu Mu’s conjecture seems to be based on a passage{XX} in the 漢官解詁 “Wei Wu Ti strung together Sun Wu’s Art of War，”[43] which in turn may have resulted from a misunderstanding of the final words of Ts‘ao Kung’s preface: 故撰爲略解焉. This， as Sun Hsing-yen points out，[44] is only a modest way of saying that he made an explanatory paraphrase，[45] or in other words， wrote a commentary on it. On the whole， the theory has met with very little acceptance. Thus， the 四庫全書 says:[46] “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.”[47]

There is every reason to suppose， then， that the 13 chapters existed in the time of Ssŭ-ma Ch‘ien practically as we have them now. That the work was then well known he tells us in so many words: “Sun Tzŭ’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.”[48] 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 contemporary record， makes no mention whatever of Sun{XXI} 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 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 葉水心 Yeh Shui-hsin:[49]—

Yeh Shui-hsin represents Ssŭ-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 破， 入， 威 and 顯 is certainly 闔廬， as is shown by the next words: 孫子與有劲焉.[65] The fact may or may not be significant; but it is nowhere explicitly stated in the Shih Chi either that Sun Tzŭ was general on the occasion of{XXIII} the taking of Ying， or that he even went there at all. Moreover， as we know that Wu Yüan and Po P‘ei both took part in the expedition， and also that its success was largely due to the dash and enterprise of 夫槩 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.

陳振孫 Ch‘ên Chên-sun of the Sung dynasty has the note:[66]—

He also says:—

It is noticeable that both Yeh Shui-hsin and Ch‘ên Chên-sun， while rejecting the personality of Sun Wu as he figures in Ssŭ-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 Hsü Lu fails to appreciate this distinction， and consequently his bitter attack on Ch‘ên Chên-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 Tzŭ，” he says， “must have lived in the age of Ching Wang [519–476]， because he is frequently plagiarised in subsequent works of the Chou， Ch‘in and Han dynasties.”[69]{XXIV} The two most shameless offenders in this respect are Wu Ch‘i and Huai-nan Tzŭ， both of them important historical personages in their day. The former lived only a century after the alleged date of Sun Tzŭ， and his death is known to have taken place in 381 B.C. It was to him， according to Liu Hsiang， that 曾申 Tsêng Shên delivered the Tso Chuan， which had been entrusted to him by its author.[70] 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 Tzŭ’s treatise was already in existence towards the end of the 5th century B.C. Further proof of Sun Tzŭ’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 Hsü Lu; and though some of the interpretations are doubtful， the main argument is hardly affected thereby.[71] 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{XXV} 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. § 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.[72] The only warfare Sun Tzŭ knows is that carried on between the various feudal princes (諸侯)， in which armoured 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 bonâ 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，[73] that seems to me quite untenable. If one thing is more apparent than another after reading the maxims of Sun Tzŭ， 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 generalisation， but also of a practical soldier closely acquainted with the military conditions of his time. To say nothing{XXVI} 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 artificially 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 Ssŭ-ma Ch‘ien’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 still 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 Tzŭ in which he alludes to contemporary affairs. The first is in VI. § 21:—

The other is in XI. § 30:—

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 Yüeh. So much has been observed by Pi I-hsün. But what has hitherto escaped notice is that they also seriously impair the credibility of Ssŭ-ma Ch‘ien’s narrative. As we have seen above， the first positive date given in connection with Sun Wu is 512 B.C. He is then spoken of as a general， acting as confidential adviser to Ho Lu， so that his alleged introduction to that monarch had already taken place，{XXVII} 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， 楚 Ch‘u， and not Yüeh， was the great hereditary enemy of Wu. The two states， Ch‘u and Wu， had been constantly at war for over half a century，[74] whereas the first war between Wu and Yüeh was waged only in 510，[75] 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 Yüeh 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.

B.C. 514Accession of Ho Lu. 512Ho Lu attacks Ch‘u， but is dissuaded from entering 郢 Ying， the capital. Shih Chi mentions Sun Wu as general. 511Another attack on Ch‘u. 510Wu makes a successful attack on Yüeh. This is the first war between the two states. 509 or 508Ch‘u invades Wu， but is signally defeated at 豫章 Yü-chang. 506Ho Lu attacks Ch‘u with the aid of T‘ang and Ts‘ai. Decisive battle of 柏舉 Po-chü， and capture of Ying. Last mention of Sun Wu in Shih Chi. 505Yüeh makes a raid on Wu in the absence of its army. Wu is beaten by Ch‘in and evacuates Ying. 504Ho Lu sends 夫差 Fu Ch‘ai to attack Ch‘u. 497勾踐 Kou Chien becomes King of Yüeh. 496Wu attacks Yüeh， but is defeated by Kou Chien at 檇李 Tsui-li. Ho Lu is killed.{XXVIII} 494Fu Ch‘ai defeats Kou Chien in the great battle of 夫椒 Fu-chiao， and enters the capital of Yüeh. 485 or 484Kou Chien renders homage to Wu. Death of Wu Tzŭ-hsü. 482Kou Chien invades Wu in the absence of Fu Ch‘ai. 478 to 476Further attacks by Yüeh on Wu. 475Kou Chien lays siege to the capital of Wu. 473Final defeat and extinction of Wu.

The sentence quoted above from VI. § 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 the struggle. Hence we may conclude that our treatise was not in existence in 505， before which date Yüeh 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 been 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 seen the light between 496 and 494， or possibly in the period 482–473， when Yüeh was once again becoming a very serious menace.[76] 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{XXIX} the great commentary. It was Wu Tzŭ-hsü， 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.[77]

How then did the Sun Tzŭ 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. Hence， 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 Yüan，[78] Po P‘ei and Fu Kai?

It is obvious that any attempt to reconstruct even the outline of Sun Tzŭ’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 gathered experience， though only in the capacity of a subordinate officer， during the intense military activity which marked the first half of that prince’s reign.[79] If he rose to be a general at all， he certainly was never on an equal footing with the three{XXX} above mentioned. He was doubtless present at the investment and occupation of Ying， and witnessed Wu’s sudden collapse in the following year. Yüeh’s attack at this critical juncture， when her rival was embarrassed on every side， seems to have convinced him that this upstart 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 Yüeh， 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 Tzŭ.

I have found it difficult to glean much about the history of Sun Tzŭ’s text. The quotations that occur in early authors go to show that the “13 chapters” of which Ssŭ-ma Ch‘ien speaks were essentially the same as those now extant. We have his word for it that they were widely circulated in his day， and can only regret that he refrained from discussing them on that account.[80] Sun Hsing-yen says in his preface:—

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 Sung 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 Tzŭ were in existence， a certain 吉天保 Chi T‘ien-pao published a work in 15 chüan entitled 十家孫子會注 “Sun Tzŭ with the collected commentaries of ten writers.”[82] There was another text， with variant readings put forward by Chu Fu of 大興 Ta-hsing，[83] 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.[84] 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 Tzŭ which appears in the War section of the great Imperial encyclopaedia printed in 1726， the 古今圖書集成 Ku Chin T‘u Shu Chi Ch‘êng. Another copy at my disposal of what is practically the same text， with slight variations， is that contained in the 周秦十一子 “Eleven philosophers of the Chou and Ch‘in dynasties”{XXXII} [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 孫星衍 Sun Hsing-yen [1752–1818]， a distinguished antiquarian and classical scholar，[85] who claimed to be an actual descendant of Sun Wu，[86] accidentally discovered a copy of Chi T‘ien-pao’s long-lost work， when on a visit to the library of the 華陰 Hua-yin temple.[87] Appended to it was the 遺說 I Shuo of 鄭友賢 Chêng Yu-hsien， mentioned in the T‘ung Chih， and also believed to have perished.[88] This is what Sun Hsing-yen designates as the 古本 or 原来 “original edition (or text)”—a rather misleading name， for it cannot by any means claim to set before us the text of Sun Tzŭ in its pristine purity. Chi T‘ien-pao was a careless compiler，[89] and appears to have been content to reproduce the somewhat debased version current in his day， without troubling to collate it{XXXIII} with the earliest editions then available. Fortunately， two versions of Sun Tzŭ， even older than the newly discovered work， were still extant， 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 Yü Lan encyclopaedia. 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 Yü Lan takes us back to the year 983， and the T‘ung Tien about 200 years further still， to the middle of the T‘ang dynasty， the value of these early transcripts of Sun Tzŭ can hardly be overestimated. Yet the idea of utilising them does not seem to have occurred to anyone until Sun Hsing-yen， acting under Government instructions， undertook a thorough recension of the text. This is his own account:—

The three individuals here referred to had evidently been occupied on the text of Sun Tzŭ 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， appeared in the names of Sun Hsing-yen and only one co-editor， 吳东谈主驥 Wu Jên-chi. They took the “original text” as their basis， and by careful comparison with the older versions， as well as the extant commentaries and other sources of information such as{XXXIV} 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 closest approximation we are ever likely to get to Sun Tzŭ’s original work. This is what will hereafter be denominated the “standard text.”

The copy which I have used belongs to a re-issue dated 1877. It is in 6 pên， forming part of a well-printed set of 23 early philosophical works in 83 pên.[91] It opens with a preface by Sun Hsing-yen (largely quoted in this introduction)， vindicating the traditional view of Sun Tzŭ’s life and performances， and summing up in remarkably concise fashion the evidence in its favour. This is followed by Ts‘ao Kung’s preface to his edition， and the biography of Sun Tzŭ from the Shih Chi， both translated above. Then come， firstly， Chêng Yu-hsien’s I Shuo，[92] with author’s preface， and next， a short miscellany of historical and bibliographical information entitled 孫子敘錄 Sun Tzŭ Hsü Lu， compiled by 畢以珣 Pi I-hsün. As regards the body of the work， each separate sentence 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 Tzŭ can boast an exceptionally long and distinguished roll of commentators， which would do honour to any classic. 歐陽修 Ou-yang Hsiu remarks on this fact， though he wrote before the tale was complete， and rather ingeniously explains it by saying that the artifices of war， being{XXXV} inexhaustible， must therefore be susceptible of treatment in a great variety of ways.[93]

1. 曹操 Ts‘ao Ts‘ao or 曹公 Ts‘ao Kung， afterwards known as 魏武帝 Wei Wu Ti [A.D. 155–220]. There is hardly any room for doubt that the earliest commentary on Sun Tzŭ actually came from the pen of this extraordinary man， whose biography in the San Kuo Chih[94] reads like 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 marvellous rapidity of his marches， which has found expression in the line 說曹操曹操就到 “Talk of Ts‘ao Ts‘ao， and 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， Lü Pu and the two Yüan， father and son， and vanquished them all; whereupon he divided the Empire of Han with Wu and Shu， and made himself king. It is recorded 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 armies incontinently beaten and put to flight.”[95] Ts‘ao Kung’s notes on Sun Tzŭ， 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 littérateur. Sometimes， indeed， owing to extreme{XXXVI} compression， they are scarcely intelligible and stand no less in need of a commentary than the text itself.[96] As we have seen， Ts‘ao Kung is the reputed author of the 新書， a book on war in 100，000 odd words， now lost， but mentioned in the 魏志.[97]

2. 孟氏 Mêng Shih. The commentary which has come down to us under this name is comparatively meagre， 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 鼂公武 Ch‘ao Kung-wu also assigns him to the T‘ang dynasty，[98] but this is obviously a mistake， as his work is mentioned in the 隋書經籍志. In Sun Hsing-yen’s preface， he appears as Mêng Shih of the Liang dynasty [502–557]. Others would identify him with 孟康 Mêng K‘ang of the 3rd century. In the 宋史藝文志，[99] he is named last of the 五家 “Five Commentators，” the others being Wei Wu Ti， Tu Mu， Ch‘ên Hao and Chia Lin.

3. 李筌 Li Ch‘üan of the 8th century was a well-known writer on military tactics. His 太白陰經 has been in constant use down to the present day. The 通志 mentions 閫外春秋 (lives of famous generals from the Chou to the T‘ang dynasty) as written by him.[100] He is also generally supposed to be the real author of the popular Taoist tract， the 陰符經. According to Ch‘ao Kung-wu and the T‘ien-i-ko catalogue，[101] he followed the 太乙遁甲 text of Sun Tzŭ， which differs considerably from those{XXXVII} now extant. His notes are mostly short and to the point， and he frequently illustrates his remarks by anecdotes from Chinese history.

4. 杜佑 Tu Yu (died 812) did not publish a separate commentary on Sun Tzŭ， his notes being taken from the T‘ung Tien， the encyclopaedic treatise on the Constitution which was his life-work. They are largely repetitions of Ts‘ao Kung and Mêng Shih， besides which it is believed that he drew on the ancient commentaries of 王凌 Wang Ling and others. Owing to the peculiar arrangement of the T‘ung Tien， he has to explain each passage on its merits， apart from the context， and sometimes his own explanation does not agree 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.

5. 杜牧 Tu Mu (803–852) is perhaps 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.[102] His notes， therefore， are well worth attention. They are very copious， and replete with historical parallels. The gist of Sun Tzŭ’s work is thus summarised by him: “Practise benevolence and justice， but on the other hand make full use of artifice and measures of expediency.”[103] He further declared that all the military{XXXVIII} triumphs and disasters of the thousand years which had elapsed since Sun Wu’s death would， upon examination， be found to uphold and corroborate， in every particular， the maxims contained in his book.[104] Tu Mu’s somewhat spiteful charge against Ts‘ao Kung has already been considered elsewhere.

6. 陳皥 Ch‘ên 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 Tzŭ 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 and diffuse.[105] Ou-yang Hsiu， writing in the middle of the 11th century， calls Ts‘ao Kung， Tu Mu and Ch‘ên Hao the three chief commentators on Sun Tzŭ (三家)， and observes that Ch‘ên Hao is continually attacking Tu Mu’s shortcomings. His commentary， though not lacking in merit， must rank below those of his predecessors.

7. 賈林 Chia Lin is known to have lived under the T‘ang dynasty， for his commentary on Sun Tzŭ is mentioned in the 唐書 and was afterwards republished by 紀燮 Chi Hsieh of the same dynasty together with those of Mêng Shih and Tu Yu.[106] It is of somewhat scanty texture， and in point of quality， too， perhaps the least valuable of the eleven.

8. 梅堯臣 Mei Yao-ch‘ên (1002–1060)， commonly known by his “style” as Mei 聖兪 Shêng-yü， 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:—

Making some allowance for the exuberance of friendship， I am inclined to endorse this favourable judgment， and would certainly place him above Ch‘ên Hao in order of merit.

{XL}

9. 王晳 Wang Hsi， also of the Sung dynasty， is decidedly original in some of his interpretations， but much less judicious than Mei Yao-ch‘ên， and on the whole not a very trustworthy guide. He is fond of comparing his own commentary with that of Ts‘ao Kung， 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 Tzŭ， filling up lacunae and correcting mistakes.[110]

10. 何延錫 Ho Yen-hsi of the Sung dynasty. The personal name of this commentator is given as above by 鄭樵 Chêng Ch‘iao in the T‘ung Chih， written about the middle of the twelfth century， but he appears simply as 何氏 Ho Shih in the Yü 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 Chêng Ch‘iao’s statement， otherwise I should have been inclined to hazard a guess and identify him with one 何去非 Ho Ch‘ü-fei， the author of a short treatise on war entitled 備論， who lived in the latter part of the 11th century.[111] Ho Shih’s commentary， in the words of the T‘ien-i-ko catalogue， 有所裨益 “contains helpful additions” here and there， but is chiefly remarkable for the copious extracts taken， in adapted form， from the dynastic histories and other sources.

11. 張預 Chang Yü. The list closes with a commentator of no great originality perhaps， but gifted with admirable powers of lucid exposition. His commentary is based on that of Ts‘ao Kung， whose terse sentences he contrives to expand and develop in masterly fashion. Without Chang Yü， 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{XLI} the Yü Hai， but it finds a niche in the T‘ung Chih， which also names him as the author of the 百將傳 “Lives of Famous Generals.”[112]

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 practise the art of war. But when [Chao] Yüan-hao’s rebellion came [1038–42] and the frontier generals were defeated time after time， the Court made strenuous enquiry for men skilled in war， and military topics became the vogue amongst all the high officials. Hence it is that the commentators of Sun Tzŭ in our dynasty belong mainly to that period.”[113]

Besides these eleven commentators， there are several others whose work has not come down to us. The Sui Shu mentions four， namely 王凌 Wang Ling (often quoted by Tu Yu as 王子); 張子尙 Chang Tzŭ-shang; 賈詡 Chia Hsü of 魏 Wei;[114] and 沈友 Shên Yu of 吳 Wu. The T‘ang Shu adds 孫鎬 Sun Hao， and the T‘ung Chih 蕭吉 Hsiao Chi， while the T‘u Shu mentions a Ming commentator， 黃潤玉 Huang Jun-yü. 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. Certainly in the case of the latter， the entry 紀夑注孫子 in the T‘ung K‘ao， without the following note， would give one to understand that he had written an independent commentary of his own.

There are two works， described in the Ssu K‘u Ch‘üan{XLII} Shu[115] and no doubt extremely rare， which I should much like to have seen. One is entitled 孫子參同， in 5 chüan. It gives selections from four new commentators， probably of the Ming dynasty， as well as from the eleven known to us. The names of the four are 解元 Hsieh Yüan; 張鏊 Chang Ao; 李村 Li Ts‘ai; and 黃治徵 Huang Chih-chêng. The other work is 孫子彚徵 in 4 chüan， compiled by 鄭端 Chêng Tuan of the present dynasty. It is a compendium of information on ancient warfare， with special reference to Sun Tzŭ’s 13 chapters.

Appreciations of Sun Tzŭ.

Sun Tzŭ 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 韓信 Han Hsin (d. B.C. 196)，[116] 馮異 Fêng I (d. A.D. 34)，[117] 呂蒙 Lü Mêng (d. 219)，[118] and 岳飛 Yo Fei (1103–1141).[119] The opinion of Ts‘ao Kung， who disputes with Han Hsin the highest place in Chinese military annals， has already been recorded.[120] Still more remarkable， in one way， is the testimony of purely literary men， such as 蘇洵 Su Hsün (the father of Su Tung-p‘o)， who wrote several essays on military topics， all of which owe their chief inspiration to Sun Tzŭ. The following short passage by him is preserved in the Yü Hai:[121]—

{XLIII}

The 性理彚要， ch. 17， contains the following extract from the 藝圃折衷 “Impartial Judgments in the Garden of Literature” by 鄭厚 Chêng Hou:—

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 reckless militarism.”[127]

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{XLIV} 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 back 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 centralisation 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 found emerging at the most fateful crises of her history. Thus， Po Ch‘i stands out conspicuous in the period when Ch‘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 illumined 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 Tzŭ 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 uncommon thing to find any of the literati{XLV} defending warfare on principle， that I have thought it worth while to collect and translate a few passages in which the unorthodox view is upheld. The following， by Ssŭ-ma Ch‘ien， shows that for all his ardent admiration of Confucius， he was yet no advocate of peace at any price:—

The next piece is taken from Tu Mu’s preface to his commentary on Sun Tzŭ:—

We have seen that the great Chu Hsi held Sun Tzŭ in high esteem. He also appeals to the authority of the Classics:—

Sun Hsing-yen， the editor of Sun Tzŭ， writes in similar strain:—

{L}

Bibliography.

The following are the oldest Chinese treatises on war， after Sun Tzŭ. The notes on each have been drawn principally from the 四庫全書簡明目錄 Ssŭ k‘u ch‘üan shu chien ming mu lu， ch. 9， fol. 22 sqq.

1. 吳子 Wu Tzŭ， in 1 chüan or 6 篇 chapters. By 吳起 Wu Ch‘i (d. B.C. 381). A genuine work. See Shih Chi， ch. 65.

2. 司馬法 Ssŭ-ma Fa， in 1 chüan or 5 chapters. Wrongly attributed to 司馬穰苴 Ssŭ-ma Jang-chü of the 6th century B.C. Its date， however， must be early， as the customs of the three ancient dynasties are constantly to be met with in its pages.[158] See Shih Chi， ch. 64.

The Ssŭ K‘u Ch‘üan Shu (ch. 99， f. 1) remarks that the oldest three treatises on war， Sun Tzŭ， Wu Tzŭ and the Ssŭ-ma Fa， are， generally speaking， only concerned with things strictly military—the art of producing， collecting， training and drilling troops， and the correct theory with regard to measures of expediency， laying plans， transport of goods and the handling of soldiers[159]—in strong contrast to later works， in which the science of war is usually blended with metaphysics， divination and magical arts in general.

3. 六韜 Liu T‘ao， in 6 chüan or 60 chapters. Attributed to 呂望 Lü Wang (or Lü 尙 Shang， also known as 太公 T‘ai Kung) of the 12th century B.C.[160] But{LI} its style does not belong to the era of the Three Dynasties.[161] 陸德明 Lu Tê-ming (550–625 A.D.) mentions the work， and enumerates the headings of the six sections， 文， 武， 虎， 豹， 龍 and 犬， so that the forgery cannot have been later than the Sui dynasty.

4. 尉繚子 Wei Liao Tzŭ， in 5 chüan. Attributed to Wei Liao (4th cent. B.C.)， who studied under the famous 鬼谷子 Kuei-ku Tzŭ. The 漢志， under 兵家， mentions a book of Wei Liao in 31 chapters， whereas the text we possess contains only 24. Its matter is sound enough in the main， though the strategical devices differ considerably from those of the Warring States period.[162] It has been furnished with a commentary by the well-known Sung philosopher 張載 Chang Tsai.

5. 三略 San Lüeh， in 3 chüan. Attributed to 黃石公 Huang-shih Kung， a legendary personage who is said to have bestowed it on Chang Liang (d. B.C. 187) in an interview on a bridge.[163] But here again， the style is not that of works dating from the Ch‘in or Han period. The Han Emperor Kuang Wu [A.D. 25–57] apparently quotes from it in one of his proclamations; but the passage in question may have been inserted later on， in order to prove the genuineness of the work. We shall not be far out if we refer it to the Northern Sung period [420–478 A.D.]， or somewhat earlier.[164]

{LII}

6. 李衞公問對 Li Wei Kung Wên Tui， in 3 sections. Written in the form of a dialogue between T‘ai Tsung and his great general 李靖 Li Ching， it is usually ascribed to the latter. Competent authorities consider it a forgery， though the author was evidently well versed in the art of war.[165]

7. 李靖兵法 Li Ching Ping Fa (not to be confounded with the foregoing) is a short treatise in 8 chapters， preserved in the T‘ung Tien， but not published separately. This fact explains its omission from the Ssŭ K‘u Ch‘üan Shu.

8. 抓奇經 Wu Ch‘i Ching，[166] in 1 chüan. Attributed to the legendary minister 風后 Fêng Hou， with exegetical notes by 公孫宏 Kung-sun Hung of the Han dynasty (d. B.C. 121)， and said to have been eulogised by the celebrated general 馬隆 Ma Lung (d. A.D. 300). Yet the earliest mention of it is in the 宋志. Although a forgery， the work is well put together.[167]

Considering the high popular estimation in which 諸葛亮 Chu-ko Liang has always been held， it is not surprising to find more than one work on war ascribed to his pen. Such are (1) the 十六策 Shih Liu Ts‘ê (1 chüan)， preserved in the 永樂大典 Yung Lo Ta Tien; (2) 將苑 Chiang Yüan (1 ch.); and (3) 心書 Hsin Shu (1 ch.)， which steals wholesale from Sun Tzŭ. None of these has the slightest claim to be considered genuine.

{LIII}

Most of the large Chinese encyclopaedias contain extensive sections devoted to the literature of war. The following references may be found useful:—

通典 T‘ung Tien (circâ 800 A.D.)， ch. 148–162.

太平御覽 T‘ai P‘ing Yü Lan (983)， ch. 270–359.

文獻通考 Wên Hsien T‘ung K‘ao (13th cent.)， ch. 221.

玉海 Yü Hai (13th cent.)， ch. 140， 141.

三才圖會 San Ts‘ai T‘u Hui (16th cent.)， 东谈主事 ch. 7， 8.

廣博物志 Kuang Po Wu Chih (1607)， ch. 31， 32.

潛確類書 Ch‘ien Ch‘io Lei Shu (1632)， ch. 75.

淵鑑類函 Yüan Chien Lei Han (1710)， ch. 206–229.

古今圖書集成 Ku Chin T‘u Shu Chi Ch‘êng (1726)， section XXX， esp. ch. 81–90.

續文獻通考 Hsü Wên Hsien T‘ung K‘ao (1784)， ch. 121–134.

皇朝經世文編 Huang Ch‘ao Ching Shih Wên Pien (1826)， ch. 76， 77.

The bibliographical sections of certain historical works also deserve mention:—

前漢書 Ch‘ien Han Shu， ch. 30.

隋書 Sui Shu， ch. 32–35.

舊唐書 Chiu T‘ang Shu， ch. 46， 47.

新唐書 Hsin T‘ang Shu， ch. 57–60.

宋史 Sung Shih， ch. 202–209.

通志 T‘ung Chih (circâ 1150)， ch. 68.

To these of course must be added the great Catalogue of the Imperial Library:—

四庫全書總目纲要 Ssŭ K‘u Ch‘üan Shu Tsung Mu T‘i Yao (1790)， ch. 99， 100.

This is the only possible meaning of 計， which M. Amiot and Capt. Calthrop wrongly translate “Fondements de l’art militaire” and “First principles” respectively. Ts‘ao Kung 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 § 26.

1. 孫子曰兵者國之大事

Sun Tzŭ said: The art of war is of vital importance to the State.

2. 死生之地死活之谈不可不察也

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.

3. 故經之以五校之以計而索其情

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.

The old text of the T‘ung Tien has 故經之以五校之計， etc. Later editors have inserted 事 after 五， and 以 before 計. The former correction is perhaps superfluous， but the latter seems necessary in order to make sense， and is supported by the accepted reading in § 12， where the same words recur. I am inclined to think， however， that the whole sentence from 校 to 情 is an interpolation and has no business here at all. If it be retained， Wang Hsi must be right in saying that 計 denotes the “seven considerations” in § 13. 情 are the circumstances or conditions likely to bring about victory or defeat. The antecedent of the first 之 is 兵者; of the second， 五. 校{2} contains the idea of “comparison with the enemy，” which cannot well be brought out here， but will appear in § 12. Altogether， difficult though it is， the passage is not so hopelessly corrupt as to justify Capt. Calthrop in burking it entirely.

4. 一曰谈二曰天三曰地四曰將五曰法

These are: (1) The Moral Law; (2) Heaven; (3) Earth; (4) The Commander; (5) Method and discipline.

It appears from what follows that Sun Tzŭ means by 谈 a principle of harmony， not unlike the Tao of Lao Tzŭ in its moral aspect. One might be tempted to render it by “morale，” were it not considered as an attribute of the ruler in § 13.

5. 谈者令民與上容许也

6. 故可與之死可與之生而民不畏危

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.

The original text omits 令民， inserts an 以 after each 可， and omits 民 after 而. Capt. Calthrop translates: “If the ruling authority be upright， the people are united”—a very pretty sentiment， but wholly out of place in what purports to be a translation of Sun Tzŭ.

7. 天者陰陽寒暑時制也

Heaven signifies night and day， cold and heat， times and seasons.

The commentators， I think， make an unnecessary mystery of 陰陽. Thus Mêng Shih defines the words as 剛柔盈縮 “the hard and the soft， waxing and waning，” which does not help us much. Wang Hsi， however， may be right in saying that what is meant is 總天谈 “the general economy of Heaven，” including the five elements， the four seasons， wind and clouds， and other phenomena.

8. 地者遠近險易廣狹死生也

Earth comprises distances， great and small; danger and security; open ground and narrow passes; the chances of life and death.

死生 (omitted by Capt. Calthrop) may have been included here because the safety of an army depends largely on its quickness to turn these geographical features to account.

{3}

9. 將者智信仁勇嚴也

The Commander stands for the virtues of wisdom， sincerity， benevolence， courage and strictness.

The five cardinal virtues of the Chinese are (1) 仁 humanity or benevolence; (2) 義 uprightness of mind; (3) 禮 self-respect， self-control， or “proper feeling;” (4) 智 wisdom; (5) 信 sincerity or good faith. Here 智 and 信 are put before 仁， and the two military virtues of “courage” and “strictness” substituted for 義 and 禮.

10. 法者曲制官谈主用也

By Method and discipline are to be understood the marshalling of the army in its proper subdivisions， the gradations of rank among the officers， the maintenance of roads by which supplies may reach the army， and the control of military expenditure.

The Chinese of this sentence is so concise as to be practically unintelligible without commentary. I have followed the interpretation of Ts‘ao Kung， who joins 曲制 and again 主用. Others take each of the six predicates separately. 曲 has the somewhat uncommon sense of “cohort” or division of an army. Capt. Calthrop translates: “Partition and ordering of troops，” which only covers 曲制.

11. 凡此五者將莫不聞知之者勝不知者不勝

These five heads should be familiar to every general: he who knows them will be victorious; he who knows them not will fail.

12. 故校之以計而索其情

Therefore， in your deliberations， when seeking to determine the military conditions， let them be made the basis of a comparison， in this wise:—

The Yü Lan has an interpolated 五 before 計. It is obvious， however， that the 五者 just enumerated cannot be described as 計. Capt. Calthrop， forced to give some rendering of the words which he had omitted in § 3， shows himself decidedly hazy: “Further， with regard to these and the following seven matters， the condition of the enemy must be compared with our own.” He does not appear to see that the seven queries or considerations which follow arise directly out of the Five heads， instead of being supplementary to them.

{4}

13. 曰主孰有谈將孰有能六合孰得王法孰行兵衆孰强士卒孰練賞罰孰明

(1) Which of the two sovereigns is imbued with the Moral law?

I.e.， “is in harmony with his subjects.” Cf. § 5.

(2) Which of the two generals has most ability?

(3) With whom lie the advantages derived from Heaven and Earth?

See §§ 7， 8.

(4) 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 his 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: 設而不犯犯而必誅 “when you lay down a law， see that it is not disobeyed; if it is disobeyed， the offender must be put to death.”

(5) Which army is the stronger?

Morally as well as physically. As Mei Yao-ch‘ên puts it， 內和外附， which might be freely rendered “esprit de corps and ‘big battalions.’”

(6) On which side are officers and men more highly trained?

Tu Yu quotes 王子 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.”

(7) In which army is there the greater constancy both in reward and punishment?

明， literally “clear;” that is， on which side is there the most absolute certainty that merit will be properly rewarded and misdeeds summarily punished?

14. 吾以此知勝負矣

By means of these seven considerations I can forecast victory or defeat.

{5}

15. 將聽吾計用之必勝留之將不聽吾計用之必敗去之

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 Tzŭ’s treatise was composed expressly for the benefit of his patron 闔閭 Ho Lü， king of the Wu State. It is not necessary， however， to understand 我 before 留之 (as some commentators do)， or to take 將 as “generals under my command.”

16. 計利以聽乃爲之勢以佐其外

While heeding the profit of my counsel， avail yourself also of any helpful circumstances over and beyond the ordinary rules.

Capt. Calthrop blunders amazingly over this sentence: “Wherefore， with regard to the foregoing， considering that with us lies the advantage， and the generals agreeing， we create a situation which promises victory.” Mere logic should have kept him from penning such frothy balderdash.

17. 勢者因利而制權也

According as circumstances are favourable， one should modify one’s plans.

Sun Tzŭ， 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 Yü 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 favourable 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 what 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 first to-morrow—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?”[168]

{6}

18. 兵者詭谈也

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 movements and deceived both friend and foe.”

19. 故能而示之不行用而示之不必近而示之遠遠而示之近

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.

20. 利而誘之亂而取之

Hold out baits to entice the enemy. Feign disorder， and crush him.

取， as often in Sun Tzŭ， is used in the sense of 擊. It is rather remarkable that all the commentators， with the exception of Chang Yü， refer 亂 to the enemy: “when he is in disorder， crush him.” It is more natural to suppose that Sun Tzŭ is still illustrating the uses of deception in war.

21. 實而備之强而避之

If he is secure at all points， be prepared for him. If he is in superior strength， evade him.

The meaning of 實 is made clear from chap. VI， where it is opposed to 虛 “weak or vulnerable spots.” 强， according to Tu Yu and other commentators， has reference to the keenness of the men as well as to numerical superiority. Capt. Calthrop evolves an extraordinarily far-fetched translation: “If there are defects， give an appearance of perfection， and awe the enemy. Pretend to be strong， and so cause the enemy to avoid you”!

22. 怒而撓之卑而驕之

If your opponent is of choleric temper， seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak， that he may grow arrogant.

I follow Chang Yü in my interpretation of 怒. 卑 is expanded by Mei Yao-ch‘ên into 示以卑弱. Wang Tzŭ， quoted by Tu Yu，{7} 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.

23. 佚而勞之親而離之

If he is taking his ease， give him no rest.

This is probably the meaning， though Mei Yao-ch‘ên has the note: 以我之佚待彼之勞 “while we are taking our ease， wait for the enemy to tire himself out.” The Yü Lan has 引而勞之 “Lure him on and tire him out.” This would seem also to have been Ts‘ao Kung’s text， judging by his comment 以利勞之.

If his forces are united， separate them.

Less plausible is the interpretation favoured by most of the commentators: “If sovereign and subject are in accord， put division between them.”

24. 攻其無備出人意外

Attack him where he is unprepared， appear where you are not expected.

25. 此兵家之勝不可先傳也

These military devices， leading to victory， must not be divulged beforehand.

This seems to be the way in which Ts‘ao Kung understood the passage， and is perhaps the best sense to be got out of the text as it stands. Most of the commentators give the following explanation: “It is impossible to lay down rules for warfare before you come into touch with the enemy.” This would be very plausible if it did not ignore 此， which unmistakably refers to the maxims which Sun Tzŭ has been laying down. It is possible， of course， that 此 may be a later interpolation， in which case the sentence would practically mean: “Success in warfare cannot be taught.” As an alternative， however， I would venture to suggest that a second 不 may have fallen out after 可， so that we get: “These maxims for succeeding in war are the first that ought to be imparted.”

26. 夫未戰而廟算勝者得算多也未戰而廟算不勝者得算少也多算勝少算不勝而況於無算乎吾以此觀之勝負見矣

Now the general who wins a battle makes many calculations in his temple ere the battle is fought.

{8}

Chang Yü tells us that in ancient times it was customary for a temple to be set apart for the use of a general who was about to take the field， in order that he might there elaborate his plan of campaign. Capt. Calthrop misunderstands it as “the shrine of the ancestors，” and gives a loose and inaccurate rendering of the whole passage.

The general who loses a battle makes but few calculations beforehand. Thus do many calculations lead to victory， and few calculations to defeat: how much more no calculation at all! It is by attention to this point that I can foresee who is likely to win or lose.

Ts‘ao Kung has the note: 欲戰必先算其費務 “He who wishes to fight must first count the cost，” which prepares us for the discovery that the subject of the chapter is not what we might expect from the title， but is primarily a consideration of ways and means.

1. 孫子曰凡用兵之法馳車千駟革車千乘帶甲十萬沉饋糧則內外之費賓客之用膠漆之材車甲之奉日費令嫒然後十萬之師舉矣

Sun Tzŭ said: In the operations of war， where there are in the field a thousand swift chariots， as many heavy chariots， and a hundred thousand mail-clad soldiers，

The 馳車 were lightly built and， according to Chang Yü， used for the attack; the 革車 were heavier， and designed for purposes of defence. Li Ch‘üan， it is true， says that the latter were light， but this seems hardly probable. Capt. Calthrop translates “chariots” and “supply wagons” respectively， but is not supported by any commentator. It is interesting to note the analogies between early Chinese warfare and that of the Homeric Greeks. In each case， the war-chariot was the important factor， forming as it did the nucleus round which was grouped a certain number of foot-soldiers. With regard to the numbers given here， we are informed that each swift chariot was accompanied by 75 footmen， and each heavy chariot by 25 footmen， so that the whole army would be divided up into a thousand battalions， each consisting of two chariots and a hundred men.

with provisions enough to carry them a thousand li，

2.78 modern li go to a mile. The length may have varied slightly since Sun Tzŭ’s time.

the expenditure at home and at the front， including entertainment of guests， small items such as glue and paint，{10} and sums spent on chariots and armour， will reach the total of a thousand ounces of silver per day.

則， which follows 糧 in the textus receptus， is important as indicating the apodosis. In the text adopted by Capt. Calthrop it is omitted， so that he is led to give this meaningless translation of the opening sentence: “Now the requirements of War are such that we need 1，000 chariots，” etc. The second 費， which is redundant， is omitted in the Yü Lan. 令嫒， like 沉 above， is meant to suggest a large but indefinite number. As the Chinese have never possessed gold coins， it is incorrect to translate it “1000 pieces of gold.”

Such is the cost of raising an army of 100，000 men.

Capt. Calthrop adds: “You have the instruments of victory，” which he seems to get from the first five characters of the next sentence.

2. 其用戰也勝久則鈍兵挫銳攻城則力屈

When you engage in actual fighting， if victory is long in coming， the men’s weapons will grow dull and their ardour will be damped.

The Yü Lan omits 勝; but though 勝久 is certainly a bold phrase， it is more likely to be right than not. Both in this place and in § 4， the T‘ung Tien and Yü Lan read 頓 (in the sense of “to injure”) instead of 鈍.

If you lay siege to a town， you will exhaust your strength.

As synonyms to 屈 are given 盡， 殫， 窮 and 困.

3. 久暴師則國用不足

Again， if the campaign is protracted， the resources of the State will not be equal to the strain.

久暴師 means literally， “If there is long exposure of the army.” Of 暴 in this sense K‘ang Hsi cites an instance from the biography of 竇融 Tou Jung in the Hou Han Shu， where the commentary defines it by 露. Cf. also the following from the 戰國策: 將軍久露馅於外 “General， you have long been exposed to all weathers.”

{11}

4. 夫鈍兵挫銳屈力殫貨則諸侯乘其幣而起雖有智者不行善其後矣

Now， when your weapons are dulled， your ardour damped， your strength exhausted and your treasure spent， other chieftains will spring up to take advantage of your extremity. Then no man， however wise， will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue.

Following Tu Yu， I understand 善 in the sense of “to make good，” i.e. to mend. But Tu Mu and Ho Shih explain it as “to make good plans”—for the future.

5. 故兵聞拙速未睹巧之久也

Thus， though we have heard of stupid haste in war， cleverness has never been seen associated with long delays.

This concise and difficult sentence is not well explained by any of the commentators. Ts‘ao Kung， Li Ch‘üan， Mêng Shih， Tu Yu， Tu Mu and Mei Yao-ch‘ên have notes to the effect that a general， though naturally stupid， may nevertheless conquer through sheer force of rapidity. Ho Shih says: “Haste may be stupid， but at any rate it saves expenditure of energy and treasure; protracted operations may be very clever， but they bring calamity in their train.” Wang Hsi evades the difficulty by remarking: “Lengthy operations mean an army growing old， wealth being expended， an empty exchequer and distress among the people; true cleverness insures against the occurrence of such calamities.” Chang Yü says: “So long as victory can be attained， stupid haste is preferable to clever dilatoriness.” Now Sun Tzŭ says nothing whatever， except possibly by implication， about ill-considered haste being better than ingenious but lengthy operations. What he does say is something much more guarded， namely that， while speed may sometimes be injudicious， tardiness can never be anything but foolish—if only because it means impoverishment to the nation. Capt. Calthrop indulges his imagination with the following: “Therefore it is acknowledged that war cannot be too short in duration. But though conducted with the utmost art， if long continuing， misfortunes do always appear.” It is hardly worth while to note the total disappearance of 拙速 in this precious concoction. In considering the point raised here by Sun Tzŭ， the classic example of Fabius Cunctator will inevitably occur to the mind. That general deliberately measured the endurance of Rome against that of Hannibal’s isolated army， because it seemed to him that the latter was more likely to suffer from a long campaign in a strange country. But it is quite a moot question whether his tactics would have proved successful in the long run. Their reversal， it is true， led to Cannae; but this only establishes a negative presumption in their favour.

{12}

6. 夫兵久而國利者未之有也

There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare.

The Yü Lan has 圖 instead of 國—evidently the mistake of a scribe.

7. 故不盡知用兵之害者則不行盡知用兵之利也

It is only one who is thoroughly acquainted with the evils of war that can thoroughly understand the profitable way of carrying it on.

That is， with rapidity. Only one who knows the disastrous effects of a long war can realise the supreme importance of rapidity in bringing it to a close. Only two commentators seem to favour this interpretation， but it fits well into the logic of the context， whereas the rendering， “He who does not know the evils of war cannot appreciate its benefits，” is distinctly pointless.

8. 善用兵者役不再籍糧不三載

The skilful soldier does not raise a second levy， neither are his supply-waggons loaded more than twice.

Once war is declared， he will not waste precious time in waiting for reinforcements， nor will he turn his army back for fresh supplies， but crosses the enemy’s frontier without delay. This may seem an audacious policy to recommend， but with all great strategists， from Julius Caesar to Napoleon Buonaparte， the value of time—that is， being a little ahead of your opponent—has counted for more than either numerical superiority or the nicest calculations with regard to commissariat. 籍 is used in the sense of 賦. The T‘ung Tien and Yü Lan have the inferior reading 藉. The commentators explain 不三載 by saying that the waggons are loaded once before passing the frontier， and that the army is met by a further consignment of supplies on the homeward march. The Yü Lan， however， reads 再 here as well.

9. 取用於國因糧於敵故軍食可足也

Bring war material with you from home， but forage on the enemy. Thus the army will have food enough for its needs.

用， “things to be used，” in the widest sense. It includes all the impedimenta of an army， apart from provisions.

{13}

10. 國之貧於師者遠輸遠輸則庶民貧

Poverty of the State exchequer causes an army to be maintained by contributions from a distance. Contributing to maintain an army at a distance causes the people to be impoverished.

The beginning of this sentence does not balance properly with the next， though obviously intended to do so. The arrangement， moreover， is so awkward that I cannot help suspecting some corruption in the text. It never seems to occur to Chinese commentators that an emendation may be necessary for the sense， and we get no help from them here. Sun Tzŭ says that the cause of the people’s impoverishment is 遠輸; it is clear， therefore， that the words have reference to some system by which the husbandmen sent their contributions of corn to the army direct. But why should it fall on them to maintain an army in this way， except because the State or Government is too poor to do so? Assuming then that 貧 ought to stand first in the sentence in order to balance 近 (the fact that the two words rhyme is significant)， and thus getting rid of 國之， we are still left with 於師， which latter word seems to me an obvious mistake for 國. “Poverty in the army” is an unlikely expression， especially as the general has just been warned not to encumber his army with a large quantity of supplies. If we suppose that 師 somehow got written here instead of 國 (a very simple supposition， as we have 近於師 in the next sentence)， and that later on somebody， scenting a mistake， prefixed the gloss 國之 to 貧， without however erasing 於師， the whole muddle may be explained. My emended text then would be 貧於國者， etc.

11. 近於師者貴賣貴賣則庶民財竭

On the other hand， the proximity of an army causes prices to go up; and high prices cause the people’s substance to be drained away.

近， that is， as Wang Hsi says， before the army has left its own territory. Ts‘ao Kung understands it of an army that has already crossed the frontier. Capt. Calthrop drops the 於， reading 近師者， but even so it is impossible to justify his translation “Repeated wars cause high prices.”

12. 財竭則急於丘役

When their substance is drained away， the peasantry will be afflicted by heavy exactions.

{14}

Cf. Mencius VII. 2. xiv. 2， where 丘民 has the same meaning as 丘役. 丘 was an ancient measure of land. The full table， as given in the 司馬法， may not be out of place here: 6 尺 = 1 步; 100 步 = 1 畝; 100 畝 = 1 夫; 3 夫 = 1 屋; 3 屋 = 1 井; 4 井 = 1 邑; 4 邑 = 1 丘; 4 丘 = 1 甸. According to the Chou Li， there were nine husbandmen to a 井， which would assign to each man the goodly allowance of 100 畝 (of which 6.6 now go to an acre). What the values of these measures were in Sun Tzŭ’s time is not known with any certainty. The lineal 尺， however， is supposed to have been about 20 cm. 急 may include levies of men， as well as other exactions.

13. 力屈財殫华夏內虛於家庶民之費十去其七

14. 公家之費破車罷馬甲胄矢弩戟楯蔽櫓丘牛大車十去其六

With this loss of substance and exhaustion of strength， the homes of the people will be stripped bare， and three-tenths of their incomes will be dissipated;

The Yü Lan omits 財殫. I would propose the emended reading 力屈則中， etc. In view of the fact that we have 財竭 in the two preceding paragraphs， it seems probable that 財 is a scribe’s mistake for 則， 殫 having been added afterwards to make sense. 华夏內虛於家， literally: “Within the middle plains there is emptiness in the homes.” For 华夏 cf. Shih Ching II. 3. vi. 3 and II. 5. ii. 3. With regard to 十去其七， Tu Mu says: 家業十耗其七也， and Wang Hsi: 民費泰半矣; that is， the people are mulcted not of 3⁄10， but of 7⁄10， of their income. But this is hardly to be extracted from our text. Ho Shih has a characteristic tag: 國以民爲本民以食爲天居东谈主上者宜乎重惜 “The people being regarded as the essential part of the State， and food as the people’s heaven， is it not right that those in authority should value and be careful of both?”

while Government expenses for broken chariots， worn-out horses， breast-plates and helmets， bows and arrows， spears and shields， protective mantlets， draught-oxen and heavy waggons， will amount to four-tenths of its total revenue.

{15}

The Yü Lan has several various readings here， the more important of which are 疲 for the less common 罷 (read p‘i2)， 干 for 蔽， and 兵牛 for 丘牛， which latter， if right， must mean “oxen from the country districts” (cf. supra， § 12). For the meaning of 櫓， see note on III， § 4. Capt. Calthrop omits to translate 丘牛大車.

15. 故智將務食於敵食敵一鍾當吾二十鍾𦮼秆一石當吾二十石

Hence a wise general makes a point of foraging on the enemy. One cartload of the enemy’s provisions is equivalent to twenty of one’s own， and likewise a single picul of his provender is equivalent to twenty from one’s own store.

Because twenty cartloads will be consumed in the process of transporting one cartload to the front. According to Ts‘ao Kung， a 鍾 = 6 斛 4 㪷， or 64 㪷， but according to Mêng Shih， 10 斛 make a 鍾. The 石 picul consisted of 70 斤 catties (Tu Mu and others say 120). 𦮼秆， literally， “beanstalks and straw.”

16. 故殺敵者怒也取敵之利者貨也

Now in order to kill the enemy， our men must be roused to anger; that there may be advantage from defeating the enemy， they must have their rewards.

These are two difficult sentences， which I have translated in accordance with Mei Yao-ch‘ên’s paraphrase. We may incontinently reject Capt. Calthrop’s extraordinary translation of the first: “Wantonly to kill and destroy the enemy must be forbidden.” Ts‘ao Kung quotes a jingle current in his day: 軍無財士不來軍無賞士不往. Tu Mu says: “Rewards are necessary in order to make the soldiers see the advantage of beating the enemy; thus， when you capture spoils from the enemy， they must be used as rewards， so that all your men may have a keen desire to fight， each on his own account.” Chang Yü takes 利 as the direct object of 取， which is not so good.

17. 故車戰得車十乘已上賞其先得者而更其旗号車雜而乘之卒善而養之

Therefore in chariot fighting， when ten or more chariots have been taken， those should be rewarded who took the first.

{16}

Capt. Calthrop’s rendering is: “They who are the first to lay their hands on more than ten of the enemy’s chariots， should be encouraged.” We should have expected the gallant captain to see that such Samson-like prowess deserved something more substantial than mere encouragement. The T‘u Shu omits 故， and has 以上 in place of the more archaic 已上.

Our own flags should be substituted for those of the enemy， and the chariots mingled and used in conjunction with ours. The captured soldiers should be kindly treated and kept.

18. 是謂勝敵而益强

This is called， using the conquered foe to augment one’s own strength.

19. 故兵貴勝不貴久

In war， then， let your great object be victory， not lengthy campaigns.

As Ho Shih remarks: 兵不可玩武不可黷 “Soldiers are not to be used as playthings. War is not a thing to be trifled with.” Sun Tzŭ here reiterates the main lesson which this chapter is intended to enforce.

20. 故知兵之將民之司命國家抚慰之主也

Thus it may be known that the leader of armies is the arbiter of the people’s fate， the man on whom it depends whether the nation shall be in peace or in peril.

In the original text， there is a 生 before the 民.

1. 孫子曰凡用兵之法全國爲上破國次之全軍爲上破軍次之全旅爲上破旅次之全卒爲上破卒次之全伍爲上破伍次之

Sun Tzŭ said: In the practical art of war， the best thing of all is to take the enemy’s country whole and intact; to shatter and destroy it is not so good. So， too， it is better to capture an army entire than to destroy it， to capture a regiment， a detachment or a company entire than to destroy them.

A 軍 “army corps，” according to the Ssŭ-ma Fa， consisted nominally of 12500 men; according to Ts‘ao Kung， a 旅 contained 500 men， a 卒 any number between 100 and 500， and a 伍 any number between 5 and 100. For the last two， however， Chang Yü gives the exact figures of 100 and 5 respectively.

2. 是故百戰百勝非善之善者也不戰而屈东谈主之兵善之善者也

Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy’s resistance without fighting.

Here again， no modern strategist but will approve the words of the old Chinese general. Moltke’s greatest triumph， the capitulation of the huge French army at Sedan， was won practically without bloodshed.

3. 故上兵伐謀其次伐交其次伐兵下政攻城

Thus the highest form of generalship is to baulk the enemy’s plans;

{18}

I.e.， as Li Ch‘üan says (伐其始謀也)， in their very inception. Perhaps the word “baulk” falls short of expressing the full force of 伐， which implies not an attitude of defence， whereby one might be content to foil the enemy’s stratagems one after another， but an active policy of counter-attack. Ho Shih puts this very clearly in his note: “When the enemy has made a plan of attack against us， we must anticipate him by delivering our own attack first.”

the next best is to prevent the junction of the enemy’s forces;

Isolating him from his allies. We must not forget that Sun Tzŭ， in speaking of hostilities， always has in mind the numerous states or principalities into which the China of his day was split up.

the next in order is to attack the enemy’s army in the field;

When he is already in full strength.

and the worst policy of all is to besiege walled cities.

The use of the word 政 is somewhat unusual， which may account for the reading of the modern text: 其下攻城.

4. 攻城之法爲不得已修櫓轒轀具器械三月而後成距闉又三月而後已

The rule is， not to besiege walled cities if it can possibly be avoided.

Another sound piece of military theory. Had the Boers acted upon it in 1899， and refrained from dissipating their strength before Kimberley， Mafeking， or even Ladysmith， it is more than probable that they would have been masters of the situation before the British were ready seriously to oppose them.

The preparation of mantlets， movable shelters， and various implements of war， will take up three whole months;

It is not quite clear what 櫓 were. Ts‘ao Kung simply defines them as 大楯 “large shields，” but we get a better idea of them from Li Ch‘üan， who says they were to protect the heads of those who were assaulting the city walls at close quarters. This seems to suggest a sort of Roman testudo， ready made. Tu Mu says they were “what are now termed 彭排” (wheeled vehicles used in repelling attacks， according to K‘ang Hsi)， but this is denied by Ch‘ên Hao. See supra， II. 14. The name is also applied to turrets on city walls. Of 轒轀 (fên yün) we get{19} a fairly clear description from several commentators. They were wooden missile-proof structures on four wheels， propelled from within， covered over with raw hides， and used in sieges to convey parties of men to and from the walls， for the purpose of filling up the encircling moat with earth. Tu Mu adds that they are now called 木驢 “wooden donkeys.” Capt. Calthrop wrongly translates the term， “battering-rams.” I follow Ts‘ao Kung in taking 具 as a verb， co-ordinate and synonymous with 修. Those commentators who regard 修 as an adjective equivalent to 長 “long，” make 具 presumably into a noun.

and the piling up of mounds over against the walls will take three months more.

The 距闉 (or 堙， in the modern text) were great mounds or ramparts of earth heaped up to the level of the enemy’s walls in order to discover the weak points in the defence， and also to destroy the 樓櫓 fortified turrets mentioned in the preceding note. Tu Yu quotes the Tso Chuan: 楚司馬子反乘堙而窺宋城也.

5. 將不勝其忿而蟻附之殺士三分之一而城不拔者此攻之災

The general， unable to control his irritation， will launch his men to the assault like swarming ants，

Capt. Calthrop unaccountably omits this vivid simile， which， as Ts‘ao Kung says， is taken from the spectacle of an army of ants climbing a wall. The meaning is that the general， losing patience at the long delay， may make a premature attempt to storm the place before his engines of war are ready.

with the result that one-third of his men are slain， while the town still remains untaken. Such are the disastrous effects of a siege.

We are reminded of the terrible losses of the Japanese before Port Arthur， in the most recent siege which history has to record. The T‘ung Tien reads 不勝心之忿 ... 則殺士卒 ... 攻城之災. For 其忿 the Yü Lan has 心怒. Capt. Calthrop does not translate 而城不拔者， and mistranslates 此攻之災.

6. 故善用兵者屈东谈主之兵而非戰也拔东谈主之城而非攻也毁东谈主之國而非久也

Therefore the skilful leader subdues the enemy’s troops without{20} any fighting; he captures their cities without laying siege to them; he overthrows their kingdom without lengthy operations in the field.

Chia Lin notes that he only overthrows the 國， that is， the Government， but does no harm to individuals. The classical instance is Wu Wang， who after having put an end to the Yin dynasty was acclaimed “Father and mother of the people.”

7. 必以全爭於六合故兵不頓而利可全此謀攻之法也

With his forces intact he will dispute the mastery of the Empire， and thus， without losing a man， his triumph will be complete.

Owing to the double meanings of 兵， 頓 [= 鈍] and 利， the latter part of the sentence is susceptible of quite a different meaning: “And thus， the weapon not being blunted by use， its keenness remains perfect.” Chang Yü says that 利 is “the advantage of a prosperous kingdom and a strong army.”

This is the method of attacking by stratagem.

8. 故用兵之法十則圍之五則攻之倍則分之

It is the rule in war， if our forces are ten to the enemy’s one， to surround him; if five to one， to attack him;

Straightaway， without waiting for any further advantage.

if twice as numerous， to divide our army into two.

Note that 之 does not refer to the enemy， as in the two preceding clauses. This sudden change of object is quite common in Chinese. Tu Mu takes exception to the saying; and at first sight， indeed， it appears to violate a fundamental principle of war. Ts‘ao Kung， however， gives a clue to Sun Tzŭ’s meaning: 以二敵一則一術爲正一術爲奇 “Being two to the enemy’s one， we may use one part of our army in the regular way， and the other for some special diversion.” [For explanation of 正 and 奇， see V. 3， note.] Chang Yü thus further elucidates the point: “If our force is twice as numerous as that of the enemy， it should be split up into two divisions， one to meet the enemy in front， and one to fall upon his rear; if he replies to the frontal attack， he may be crushed from behind; if to the rearward attack， he may be crushed in front. This is what is meant by saying that “one part may be used in the regular way， and the other for some special diversion.” Tu Mu does not understand that dividing one’s army is simply an irregular， just as concentrating it is the regular， strategical method， and he is too hasty in calling this a mistake.”

{21}

9. 敵則能戰之少則能逃之不若則能避之

If equally matched， we can offer battle;

Li Ch‘üan， followed by Ho Shih， gives the following paraphrase: 主客力敵惟善者戰 “If attackers and attacked are equally matched in strength， only the able general will fight.” He thus takes 能 as though it were 能者， which is awkward.

if slightly inferior in numbers， we can avoid the enemy;

The T‘u Shu has 守 instead of 逃， which is hardly distinguishable in sense from 避 in the next clause. The meaning， “we can watch the enemy，” is certainly a great improvement on the above; but unfortunately there appears to be no very good authority for the variant. Chang Yü reminds us that the saying only applies if the other factors are equal; a small difference in numbers is often more than counterbalanced by superior energy and discipline.

if quite unequal in every way， we can flee from him.

10. 故小敵之堅大敵之擒也

Hence， though an obstinate fight may be made by a small force， in the end it must be captured by the larger force.

In other words: “C’est magnifique; mais ce n’est pas la guerre.”

11. 夫將者國之輔也輔周則國必强輔隙則國必弱

Now the general is the bulwark of the State: if the bulwark is complete at all points， the State will be strong; if the bulwark is defective， the State will be weak.

隙 cannot be restricted to anything so particular as in Capt. Calthrop’s translation， “divided in his allegiance.” It is simply keeping up the metaphor suggested by 周. As Li Ch‘üan tersely puts it: 隙缺也將才不備兵必弱 “Ch‘i， gap， indicates deficiency; if the general’s ability is not perfect (i.e. if he is not thoroughly versed in his profession)， his army will lack strength.”

12. 故君之是以患於軍者三

There are three ways in which a ruler can bring misfortune upon his army:—

{22}

13. 不知軍之不不错進而謂之進不知軍之不不错退而謂之退是謂縻軍

(1) By commanding the army to advance or to retreat， being ignorant of the fact that it cannot obey. This is called hobbling the army.

Ts‘ao Kung weakly defines 縻 as 御 “control，” “direct.” Cf. § 17 ad fin. But in reality it is one of those graphic metaphors which from time to time illuminate Sun Tzŭ’s work， and is rightly explained by Li Ch‘üan as = 絆. He adds the comment: 如絆驥足無馳驟也. “It is like tying together the legs of a thoroughbred， so that it is unable to gallop.” One would naturally think of “the ruler” in this passage as being at home， and trying to direct the movements of his army from a distance. But the commentators understand just the reverse， and quote the saying of T‘ai Kung: 國不不错從外治軍不不错從中御 “A kingdom should not be governed from without， an army should not be directed from within.” Of course it is true that， during an engagement， or when in close touch with the enemy， the general should not be in the thick of his own troops， but a little distance apart. Otherwise， he will be liable to misjudge the position as a whole， and give wrong orders.

14. 不知三軍之事而同三軍之政者則軍士惑矣

(2) By attempting to govern an army in the same way as he administers a kingdom， being ignorant of the conditions which obtain in an army. This causes restlessness in the soldier’s minds.

Ts‘ao Kung’s note is: 軍容不入國國容不入軍禮不不错治兵也， which may be freely translated: “The military sphere and the civil sphere are wholly distinct; you can’t handle an army in kid gloves.” And Chang Yü says: “Humanity and justice (仁義) are the principles on which to govern a state， but not an army; opportunism and flexibility (權變)， on the other hand， are military rather than civic virtues.” 同三軍之政， “to assimilate the governing of an army”—to that of a State， understood. The T‘ung Tien has 欲 inserted before 同， here and in § 15.

{23}

15. 不知三軍之權而同三軍之任則軍士疑矣

(3) By employing the officers of his army without discrimination，

That is， he is not careful to use the right man in the right place.

through ignorance of the military principle of adaptation to circumstances. This shakes the confidence of the soldiers.

I follow Mei Yao-ch‘ên here. The other commentators make 不知 etc. refer， not to the ruler， as in §§ 13， 14， but to the officers he employs. Thus Tu Yu says: 將若不知權變不可付以勢位 “If a general is ignorant of the principle of adaptability， he must not be entrusted with a position of authority.” Tu Mu quotes 黃石公: “The skilful employer of men will employ the wise man， the brave man， the covetous man， and the stupid man. For the wise man delights in establishing his merit， the brave man likes to show his courage in action， the covetous man is quick at seizing advantages， and the stupid man has no fear of death.” The T‘ung Tien reads 軍覆疑， which Tu Yu explains as 覆敗 “is utterly defeated.” Capt. Calthrop gives a very inaccurate rendering: “Ignorant of the situation of the army， to interfere in its dispositions.”

16. 三軍既惑且疑則諸侯之難至矣是謂亂軍引勝

But when the army is restless and distrustful， trouble is sure to come from the other feudal princes. This is simply bringing anarchy into the army， and flinging victory away.

Most of the commentators take 引 in the sense of 奪， which it seems to bear also in the Li Chi， 玉藻， I. 18. [卻 is there given as its equivalent， but Legge tries notwithstanding to retain the more usual sense， translating “draw ... back，” which is hardly defensible.] Tu Mu and Wang Hsi， however， think 引勝 means “leading up to the enemy’s victory.”

17. 故知勝有五知不错戰與不不错戰者勝識衆寡之用者勝高下同欲者勝以虞待不虞者勝將能而君不御者勝此五者知勝之谈也

Thus we may know that there are five essentials{24} for victory: (1) He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight.

Chang Yü says: “If he can fight， he advances and takes the offensive; if he cannot fight， he retreats and remains on the defensive. He will invariably conquer who knows whether it is right to take the offensive or the defensive.”

(2) He will win who knows how to handle both superior and inferior forces.

This is not merely the general’s ability to estimate numbers correctly， as Li Ch‘üan and others make out. Chang Yü expounds the saying more satisfactorily: “By applying the art of war， it is possible with a lesser force to defeat a greater， and vice versâ. The secret lies in an eye for locality， and in not letting the right moment slip. Thus Wu Tzŭ says: ‘With a superior force， make for easy ground; with an inferior one， make for difficult ground.’”

(3) He will win whose army is animated by the same spirit throughout all its ranks.

Ts‘ao Kung refers 高下 less well to sovereign and subjects.

(4) He will win who， prepared himself， waits to take the enemy unprepared.

(5) He will win who has military capacity and is not interfered with by the sovereign.

Tu Yu quotes 王子 as saying: 指授在君決戰在將也 “It is the sovereign’s function to give broad instructions， but to decide on battle is the function of the general.” It is needless to dilate on the military disasters which have been caused by undue interference with operations in the field on the part of the home government. Napoleon undoubtedly owed much of his extraordinary success to the fact that he was not hampered by any central authority，—that he was， in fact， 將 and 君 in one.

Victory lies in the knowledge of these five points.

Literally， “These five things are knowledge of the principle of victory.”

18. 故曰心中少见百戰不殆不知彼而亲信一勝一負不知彼不亲信每戰必殆

Hence the saying: If you know the enemy and know yourself， you need not fear the result of a hundred{25} battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy， for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat.

Li Ch‘üan cites the case of 苻堅 Fu Chien， prince of 秦 Ch‘in， who in 383 A.D. marched with a vast army against the 晉 Chin Emperor. When warned not to despise an enemy who could command the services of such men as 謝安 Hsieh An and 桓沖 Huan Ch‘ung， he boastfully replied: “I have the population of eight provinces at my back， infantry and horsemen to the number of one million; why， they could dam up the Yangtsze River itself by merely throwing their whips into the stream. What danger have I to fear?” Nevertheless， his forces were soon after disastrously routed at the 淝 Fei River， and he was obliged to beat a hasty retreat.

If you know neither the enemy nor yourself， you will succumb in every battle.

The modern text， represented by the 北堂書鈔 and T‘u Shu， has 必敗， which I should be inclined to adopt in preference to 殆 here， though the T‘ung Tien and Yü Lan both have the latter. Chang Yü offers the best commentary on 心中少见. He says that these words “have reference to attack and defence: knowing the enemy enables you to take the offensive， knowing yourself enables you to stand on the defensive.” He adds: 攻是守之機守是攻之策 “Attack is the secret of defence; defence is the planning of an attack.” It would be hard to find a better epitome of the root-principle of war.

形 is a very comprehensive and somewhat vague term. Literally， “form，” “body，” it comes to mean “appearance，” “attitude” or “disposition;” and here it is best taken as something between， or perhaps combining， “tactics” and “disposition of troops.” Ts‘ao Kung explains it as 軍之形也，我動彼應兩敵相察情也 “marching and counter-marching on the part of the two armies with a view to discovering each other’s condition.” Tu Mu says: “It is through the 形 dispositions of an army that its condition may be discovered. Conceal your dispositions (無形)， and your condition will remain secret， which leads to victory; show your dispositions， and your condition will become patent， which leads to defeat.” Wang Hsi remarks that the good general can 變化其形因敵以制勝 “secure success by modifying his tactics to meet those of the enemy.” In the modern text， the title of the chapter appears as 軍形， which Capt. Calthrop incorrectly translates “the order of battle.”

1. 孫子曰昔之善戰者先爲不可勝以待敵之可勝

Sun Tzŭ said: The good fighters of old first put themselves beyond the possibility of defeat， and then waited for an opportunity of defeating the enemy.

2. 不可勝在己可勝在敵

To secure ourselves against defeat lies in our own hands， but the opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself.

That is， of course， by a mistake on his part. Capt. Calthrop has: “The causes of defeat come from within; victory is born in the enemy’s camp，” which， though certainly an improvement on his previous attempt， is still incorrect.

{27}

3. 故善戰者能爲不可勝不行使敵必可勝

Thus the good fighter is able to secure himself against defeat，

“By concealing the disposition of his troops， covering up his tracks， and taking unremitting precautions” (Chang Yü).

but cannot make certain of defeating the enemy.

The original text reads 使敵之可勝， which the modern text has further modified into 使敵之必可勝. Capt. Calthrop makes out the impossible meaning， “and further render the enemy incapable of victory.”

4. 故曰勝可知而不可爲

Hence the saying: One may know how to conquer without being able to do it.

Capt. Calthrop translates: “The conditions necessary for victory may be present， but they cannot always be obtained，” which is more or less unintelligible.

5. 不可勝者守也可勝者攻也

Security against defeat implies defensive tactics; ability to defeat the enemy means taking the offensive.

For 不可勝 I retain the sense which it undoubtedly bears in §§ 1–3， in spite of the fact that the commentators are all against me. The meaning they give， “He who cannot conquer takes the defensive，” is plausible enough， but it is highly improbable that 勝 should suddenly become active in this way. An incorrect variant in the Yü Lan is 不可勝則守可勝則攻.

6. 守則不足攻則有餘

Standing on the defensive indicates insufficient strength; attacking， a superabundance of strength.

7. 善守者藏於九地之下善攻者動於九天之上故能自卫而全勝也

The general who is skilled in defence hides in the most secret recesses of the earth;

Literally， “hides under the ninth earth，” which is a metaphor indicating the utmost secrecy and concealment， so that the enemy may not know{28} his whereabouts. The 九地 of this passage have of course no connection with the 九地 “Nine situations” of chap. XI.

he who is skilled in attack flashes forth from the topmost heights of heaven.

Another metaphor， implying that he falls on his adversary like a thunderbolt， against which there is no time to prepare. This is the opinion of most of the commentators， though Ts‘ao Kung， followed by Tu Yu， explains 地 as the hills， rivers， and other natural features which will afford shelter or protection to the attacked， and 天 as the phases of weather which may be turned to account by the attacking party. Capt. Calthrop’s “The skilful in attack push to the topmost heaven” conveys no meaning at all.

Thus on the one hand we have ability to protect ourselves; on the other， a victory that is complete.

Capt. Calthrop draws on a fertile imagination for the following: “If these precepts be observed， victory is certain.”

8. 見勝不過衆东谈主之所知非善之善者也

To see victory only when it is within the ken of the common herd is not the acme of excellence.

As Ts‘ao Kung remarks， 當見未萌 “the thing is to see the plant before it has germinated，” to foresee the event before the action has begun. Li Ch‘üan alludes to the story of Han Hsin who， when about to attack the vastly superior army of 趙 Chao， which was strongly entrenched in the city of 成安 Ch‘êng-an， said to his officers: “Gentlemen， we are going to annihilate the enemy， and shall meet again at dinner.” The officers hardly took his words seriously， and gave a very dubious assent. But Han Hsin had already worked out in his mind the details of a clever stratagem， whereby， as he foresaw， he was able to capture the city and inflict a crushing defeat on his adversary. For the full story， see 前漢書， chap. 34， 韓信傳. Capt. Calthrop again blunders badly with: “A victory， even if popularly proclaimed as such by the common folk， may not be a true success.”

9. 戰勝而六合曰善非善之善者也

Neither is it the acme of excellence if you fight and conquer and the whole Empire says， “Well done!”

True excellence being， as Tu Mu says: 陰謀潛運攻心伐謀勝敵之日曾不血刃 “To plan secretly， to move surreptitiously，{29} to foil the enemy’s intentions and baulk his schemes， so that at last the day may be won without shedding a drop of blood.” Sun Tzŭ reserves his approbation for things that

10. 故舉秋绝不爲多力見日月不爲明目聞雷霆不爲聰耳

To lift an autumn hair is no sign of great strength;

秋毫 is explained as the fur of a hare， which is finest in autumn， when it begins to grow afresh. The phrase is a very common one in Chinese writers. Cf. Mencius， I. 1. vii. 10， and Chuang Tzŭ， 知北遊， et al.

to see sun and moon is no sign of sharp sight; to hear the noise of thunder is no sign of a quick ear.

Ho Shih gives as real instances of strength， sharp sight and quick hearing: 烏獲 Wu Huo， who could lift a tripod weighing 250 stone; 離朱 Li Chu， who at a distance of a hundred paces could see objects no bigger than a mustard seed; and 師曠 Shih K‘uang， a blind musician who could hear the footsteps of a mosquito.

11. 古之所謂善戰者勝勝易勝者也

What the ancients called a clever fighter is one who not only wins， but excels in winning with ease.

The original text， followed by the T‘u Shu， has 勝於易勝者也. But this is an alteration evidently intended to smooth the awkwardness of 勝勝易勝者也， which means literally: “one who， conquering， excels in easy conquering.” Mei Yao-ch‘ên says: “He who only sees the obvious， wins his battles with difficulty; he who looks below the surface of things， wins with ease.”

12. 故善戰者之勝也無智名無勇功

Hence his victories bring him neither reputation for wisdom nor credit for courage.

Tu Mu explains this very well: “Inasmuch as his victories are gained over circumstances that have not come to light， the world at large knows nothing of them， and he wins no reputation for wisdom; inasmuch as the hostile state submits before there has been any bloodshed， he receives no credit for courage.”

{30}

13. 故其戰勝不忒不忒者其所措必勝勝已敗者也

He wins his battles by making no mistakes.

Ch‘ên Hao says: “He plans no superfluous marches， he devises no futile attacks.” The connection of ideas is thus explained by Chang Yü: “One who seeks to conquer by sheer strength， clever though he may be at winning pitched battles， is also liable on occasion to be vanquished; whereas he who can look into the future and discern conditions that are not yet manifest， will never make a blunder and therefore invariably win.” Li Ch‘üan thinks that the character 忒 should be 貳 “to have doubts.” But it is better not to tamper with the text， especially when no improvement in sense is the result.

Making no mistakes is what establishes the certainty of victory， for it means conquering an enemy that is already defeated.

The T‘u Shu omits 必. 措 is here = 置. Chia Lin says it is put for 錯 in the sense of 雜; but this is far-fetched. Capt. Calthrop altogether ignores the important word 忒.

14. 故善戰者立於不敗之地而不失敵之敗也

Hence the skilful fighter puts himself into a position which makes defeat impossible， and does not miss the moment for defeating the enemy.

A 不可爲之計 “counsel of perfection，” as Tu Mu truly observes. 地 need not be confined strictly to the actual ground occupied by the troops. It includes all the arrangements and preparations which a wise general will make to increase the safety of his army.

15. 是故勝兵先勝而後求戰敗兵先戰而後求勝

Thus it is that in war the victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won， whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory.

Ho Shih thus expounds the paradox: “In warfare， first lay plans which will ensure victory， and then lead your army to battle; if you will not begin with stratagem but rely on brute strength alone， victory will no longer be assured.”

{31}

16. 善用兵者修谈而保法故能爲勝敗之政

The consummate leader cultivates the moral law， and strictly adheres to method and discipline;

For 谈 and 法， see supra， I. 4 sqq. I think that Chang Yü is wrong in altering their signification here， and taking them as 爲戰之谈 and 制敵之法 respectively.

thus it is in his power to control success.

17. 兵法一曰度二曰量三曰數四曰稱五曰勝

In respect of military method， we have， firstly， Measurement; secondly， Estimation of quantity; thirdly， Calculation; fourthly， Balancing of chances; fifthly， Victory.

18. 地生度度生量量生數數生稱稱生勝

Measurement owes its existence to Earth; Estimation of quantity to Measurement; Calculation to Estimation of quantity; Balancing of chances to Calculation; and Victory to Balancing of chances.

It is not easy to distinguish the four terms 度量數稱 very clearly. The first seems to be surveying and measurement of the ground， which enable us to 量 form an estimate of the enemy’s strength， and to 數 make calculations based on the data thus obtained; we are thus led to 稱 a general weighing-up， or comparison of the enemy’s chances with our own; if the latter turn the scale， then 勝 victory ensues. The chief difficulty lies in 數， which some commentators take as a calculation of numbers， thereby making it nearly synonymous with 量. Perhaps 量 is rather a consideration of the enemy’s general position or condition (情 or 形勢)， while 數 is the estimate of his numerical strength. On the other hand， Tu Mu defines 數 as 機數， and adds: 强弱已定然後能用機變數也 “the question of relative strength having been settled， we can bring the varied resources of cunning into play.” Ho Shih seconds this interpretation， which is weakened， however， by the fact that 稱 is given as logically consequent on 數; this certainly points to the latter being a calculation of numbers. Of Capt. Calthrop’s version the less said the better.

{32}

19. 故勝兵若以鎰稱銖敗兵若以銖稱鎰

A victorious army opposed to a routed one， is as a pound’s weight placed in the scale against a single grain.

Literally， “a victorious army is like an 鎰 i (20 oz.) weighed against a 銖 shu (1⁄24 oz.); a routed army as a shu weighed against an i.” The point is simply the enormous advantage which a disciplined force， flushed with victory， has over one demoralised by defeat. Legge， in his note on Mencius， I. 2. ix. 2， makes the 鎰 to be 24 Chinese ounces， and corrects Chu Hsi’s statement that it equalled 20 oz. only. But Li Ch‘üan of the T‘ang dynasty here gives the same figure as Chu Hsi.

20. 勝者之戰民也若決積水於千仞之谿者形也

The onrush of a conquering force is like the bursting of pent-up waters into a chasm a thousand fathoms deep. So much for tactical dispositions.

The construction here is slightly awkward and elliptical， but the general sense is plain. The T‘u Shu omits 民也. A 仞 = 8 尺 or Chinese feet.

埶 here is said to be an older form of 勢; Sun Tzŭ， however， would seem to have used the former in the sense of “power，” and the latter only in the sense of “circumstances.” The fuller title 兵勢 is found in the T‘u Shu and the modern text. Wang Hsi expands it into 積勢之變 “the application， in various ways， of accumulated power;” and Chang Yü says: 兵勢以成然後任勢以取勝 “When the soldiers’ energy has reached its height， it may be used to secure victory.”

1. 孫子曰凡治衆如治寡分數是也

Sun Tzŭ said: The control of a large force is the same in principle as the control of a few men: it is merely a question of dividing up their numbers.

That is， cutting up the army into regiments， companies， etc.， with subordinate officers in command of each. Tu Mu reminds us of Han Hsin’s famous reply to the first Han Emperor， who once said to him: “How large an army do you think I could lead?” “Not more than 100，000 men， your Majesty.” “And you?” asked the Emperor. “Oh!” he answered， “the more the better” (多多益辦耳). Chang Yü gives the following curious table of the subdivisions of an army:—5 men make a 列; 2 列 make a 火; 5 火 make a 隊; 2 隊 make a 官; 2 官 make a 曲; 2 曲 make a 部; 2 部 make a 校; 2 校 make a 裨; 2 裨 make a 軍. A 軍 or army corps thus works out at 3200 men. But cf. III. § 1， note. For 曲， see I. § 10. It is possible that 官 in that paragraph may also be used in the above technical sense.

2. 鬥衆如鬥寡形名是也

Fighting with a large army under your command is nowise different from fighting with a small one: it is merely a question of instituting signs and signals.

{34}

One must be careful to avoid translating 鬥衆 “fighting against a large number，” no reference to the enemy being intended. 形 is explained by Ts‘ao Kung as denoting flags and banners， by means of which every soldier may recognise his own particular regiment or company， and thus confusion may be prevented. 名 he explains as drums and gongs， which from the earliest times were used to sound the advance and the retreat respectively. Tu Mu defines 形 as 陳形 “marshalling the troops in order，” and takes 名 as the flags and banners. Wang Hsi also dissents from Ts‘ao Kung， referring 形 to the ordering of the troops by means of banners， drums and gongs， and 名 to the various names by which the regiments might be distinguished. There is much to be said for this view.

3. 三軍之衆可使必受敵而無敗者奇恰是也

To ensure that your whole host may withstand the brunt of the enemy’s attack and remain unshaken—this is effected by manœuvres direct and indirect.

For 必， there is another reading 畢， “all together，” adopted by Wang Hsi and Chang Yü. We now come to one of the most interesting parts of Sun Tzŭ’s treatise， the discussion of the 正 and the 奇. As it is by no means easy to grasp the full significance of these two terms， or to render them at all consistently by good English equivalents， it may be as well to tabulate some of the commentators’ remarks on the subject before proceeding further. Li Ch‘üan: 當敵爲正傍出爲奇 “Facing the enemy is chêng， making lateral diversions is ch‘i.” Chia Lin: 當敵以正陳取勝以奇兵 “In presence of the enemy， your troops should be arrayed in normal fashion， but in order to secure victory abnormal manœuvres must be employed.” Mei Yao-ch‘ên: 動爲奇靜爲正靜以待之動以勝之 “Ch‘i is active， chêng is passive; passivity means waiting for an opportunity， activity brings the victory itself.” Ho Shih: 我之正使敵視之爲奇我之奇使敵視之爲正正亦爲奇奇亦爲正 “We must cause the enemy to regard our straightforward attack as one that is secretly designed， and vice versâ; thus chêng may also be ch‘i， and ch‘i may also be chêng.” He instances the famous exploit of Han Hsin， who when marching ostensibly against 臨晉 Lin-chin (now 朝邑 Chao-i in Shensi)， suddenly threw a large force across the Yellow River in wooden tubs， utterly disconcerting his opponent. [Ch‘ien Han Shu， ch. 34.] Here， we are told， the march on Lin-chin was 正， and the surprise manœuvre was 奇. Chang Yü gives the following summary of opinions on the words: “Military writers{35} do not all agree with regard to the meaning of ch‘i and chêng. 尉繚子 Wei Liao Tzŭ [4th cent. B.C.] says: 正兵貴先奇兵貴後 ‘Direct warfare favours frontal attacks， indirect warfare attacks from the rear.’ Ts‘ao Kung says: ‘Going straight out to join battle is a direct operation; appearing on the enemy’s rear is an indirect manœuvre.’ 李衛公 Li Wei-kung [6th and 7th cent. A.D.] says: ‘In war， to march straight ahead is chêng; turning movements， on the other hand， are ch‘i.’ These writers simply regard chêng as chêng， and ch‘i as ch‘i; they do not note that the two are mutually interchangeable and run into each other like the two sides of a circle [see infra， § 11]. A comment of the T‘ang Emperor T‘ai Tsung goes to the root of the matter: ‘A ch‘i manœuvre may be chêng， if we make the enemy look upon it as chêng; then our real attack will be ch‘i， and vice versâ. The whole secret lies in confusing the enemy， so that he cannot fathom our real intent.’” To put it perhaps a little more clearly: any attack or other operation is 正， on which the enemy has had his attention fixed; whereas that is 奇， which takes him by surprise or comes from an unexpected quarter. If the enemy perceives a movement which is meant to be 奇， it immediately becomes 正.

4. 兵之所加如以碬投卵者虛實是也

That the impact of your army may be like a grindstone dashed against an egg—this is effected by the science of weak points and strong.

虛實， literally “the hollow and the solid，” is the title of chap. VI. 碫 tuan is the T‘u Shu reading， 碬 hsia that of the standard text. It appears from K‘ang Hsi that there has been much confusion between the two characters， and indeed， it is probable that one of them has really crept into the language as a mistake for the other.

5. 凡戰者以正合以奇勝

In all fighting， the direct method may be used for joining battle， but indirect methods will be needed in order to secure victory.

Chang Yü says: 徐發奇兵或擣其旁或擊其後 “Steadily develop indirect tactics， either by pounding the enemy’s flanks or falling on his rear.” A brilliant example of “indirect tactics” which decided the fortunes of a campaign was Lord Roberts’ night march round the Peiwar Kotal in the second Afghan war.[169]

{36}

6. 故善特地者無窮如六合遏抑如江河終而復始日月是也死而復生四時是也

Indirect tactics， efficiently applied， are inexhaustible as Heaven and Earth， unending as the flow of rivers and streams;

奇 is the universally accepted emendation for 兵， the reading of the 北堂書鈔.

like the sun and moon， they end but to begin anew; like the four seasons， they pass away but to return once more.

Tu Yu and Chang Yü understand this of the permutations of 奇 and 正. But at present Sun Tzŭ is not speaking of 正 at all， unless， indeed， we suppose with 鄭友賢 Chêng Yu-hsien that a clause relating to it has fallen out of the text. Of course， as has already been pointed out， the two are so inextricably interwoven in all military operations， that they cannot really be considered apart. Here we simply have an expression， in figurative language， of the almost infinite resource of a great leader.

7. 聲不過五五聲之變不可勝聽也

There are not more than five musical notes，

宮商角微羽.

yet the combinations of these five give rise to more melodies than can ever be heard.

8. 色不過五五色之變不可勝觀也

There are not more than five primary colours，

靑黃赤白黑 blue， yellow， red， white and black.

yet in combination they produce more hues than can ever be seen.

9. 味不過五五味之變不可勝嘗也

There are not more than five cardinal tastes，

酸辛醎甘苦 sour， acrid， salt， sweet， bitter.

yet combinations of them yield more flavours than can ever be tasted.

{37}

10. 戰埶不過奇正奇正之變不可勝窮也

In battle， there are not more than two methods of attack—the direct and the indirect; yet these two in combination give rise to an endless series of manœuvres.

11. 奇正相生如循環之無端孰能窮之

The direct and the indirect lead on to each other in turn. It is like moving in a circle—you never come to an end. Who can exhaust the possibilities of their combination?

The T‘u Shu adds 哉. The final 之 may refer either to the circle or， more probably， to the 奇正之變 understood. Capt. Calthrop is wrong with: “They are a mystery that none can penetrate.”

12. 激水之疾至於漂石者埶也

The onset of troops is like the rush of a torrent which will even roll stones along in its course.

13. 鷙鳥之疾至於毁折者節也

The quality of decision is like the well-timed swoop of a falcon which enables it to strike and destroy its victim.

For 疾 the Yü Lan reads 擊， which is also supported by a quotation in the 呂氏春秋 [3rd cent. B.C.]. 節 in this context is a word which really defies the best efforts of the translator. Tu Mu says that it is equivalent to 節量遠近 “the measurement or estimation of distance.” But this meaning does not quite fit the illustrative simile in § 15. As applied to the falcon， it seems to me to denote that instinct of self-restraint which keeps the bird from swooping on its quarry until the right moment， together with the power of judging when the right moment has arrived. The analogous quality in soldiers is the highly important one of being able to reserve their fire until the very instant at which it will be most effective. When the “Victory” went into action at Trafalgar at hardly more than drifting pace， she was for several minutes exposed to a storm of shot and shell before replying with a single gun. Nelson coolly waited until he was within close range， when the broadside he brought to bear worked fearful havoc on the enemy’s nearest ships. That was a case of 節.

{38}

14. 是故善戰者其埶險其節短

Therefore the good fighter will be terrible in his onset， and prompt in his decision.

Tu Yu defines 節 here by the word 斷， which is very like “decision” in English. 短 is certainly used in a very unusual sense， even if， as the commentators say， it = 近. This would have reference to the measurement of distance mentioned above， letting the enemy get near before striking. But I cannot help thinking that Sun Tzŭ meant to use the word in a figurative sense comparable to our own idiom “short and sharp.” Cf. Wang Hsi’s note， which after describing the falcon’s mode of attack， proceeds: 兵之乘機當如是耳 “This is just how the ‘psychological moment’ should be seized in war.” I do not care for Capt. Calthrop’s rendering: “The spirit of the good fighter is terrifying， his occasions sudden.”

15. 埶如彍弩節如發機

Energy may be likened to the bending of a cross-bow; decision， to the releasing of the trigger.

“Energy” seems to be the best equivalent here for 埶， because the comparison implies that the force is potential， being stored up in the bent cross-bow until released by the finger on the trigger. None of the commentators seem to grasp the real point of the simile.

16. 紛紛紜紜鬥亂而不可亂也渾渾沌沌形圓而不可敗也

Amid the turmoil and tumult of battle， there may be seeming disorder and yet no real disorder at all; amid confusion and chaos， your array may be without head or tail， yet it will be proof against defeat.

形圓， literally “formation circular”， is explained by Li Ch‘üan as 無向背也 “without back or front.” Mei Yao-ch‘ên says: “The subdivisions of the army having been previously fixed， and the various signals agreed upon， the separating and joining， the dispersing and collecting which will take place in the course of a battle， may give the appearance of disorder when no real disorder is possible. Your formation may be without head or tail， your dispositions all topsy-turvy， and yet a rout of your forces quite out of the question.” It is a little difficult to decide whether 鬥亂 and 形圓 should not be taken as imperatives: “fight in disorder (for the purpose of deceiving the enemy)， and you will be secure against real disorder.” Cf. I. § 20: 亂而取之.

{39}

17. 亂生於治怯生於勇弱生於彊

Simulated disorder postulates perfect discipline; simulated fear postulates courage; simulated weakness postulates strength.

In order to make the translation intelligible， it is necessary to tone down the sharply paradoxical form of the original. Ts‘ao Kung throws out a hint of the meaning in his brief note: 齐毁形匿情也 “These things all serve to destroy formation and conceal one’s condition.” But Tu Mu is the first to put it quite plainly: “If you wish to feign confusion in order to lure the enemy on， you must first have perfect discipline; if you wish to display timidity in order to entrap the enemy， you must have extreme courage; if you wish to parade your weakness in order to make the enemy over-confident， you must have exceeding strength.”

18. 治亂數也勇怯埶也彊弱形也

Hiding order beneath the cloak of disorder is simply a question of subdivision;

See supra， § 1.

concealing courage under a show of timidity presupposes a fund of latent energy;

It is passing strange that the commentators should understand 埶 here as “circumstances”—a totally different sense from that which it has previously borne in this chapter. Thus Tu Mu says: 見成心之勢而不動敵东谈主以我爲實怯也 “seeing that we are favourably circumstanced and yet make no move， the enemy will believe that we are really afraid.”

masking strength with weakness is to be effected by tactical dispositions.

Chang Yü relates the following anecdote of Kao Tsu， the first Han Emperor: “Wishing to crush the Hsiung-nu， he sent out spies to report on their condition. But the Hsiung-nu， forewarned， carefully concealed all their able-bodied men and well-fed horses， and only allowed infirm soldiers and emaciated cattle to be seen. The result was that the spies one and all recommended the Emperor to deliver his attack.” 婁敬 Lou Ching alone opposed them， saying: “When two countries go to war， they are naturally inclined to make an ostentatious display of their strength. Yet our spies have seen nothing but old age and infirmity. This is surely some ruse on the part of the enemy， and it would be unwise for us to attack.” The Emperor， however， disregarding this advice， fell into the trap and found himself surrounded at 白登 Po-têng.”

{40}

19. 故善動敵者形之敵必從之予之敵必取之

Thus one who is skilful at keeping the enemy on the move maintains deceitful appearances， according to which the enemy will act.

Ts‘ao Kung’s note is 見羸形也 “Make a display of weakness and want，” but Tu Mu rightly points out that 形 does not refer only to weakness: “If our force happens to be superior to the enemy’s， weakness may be simulated in order to lure him on; but if inferior， he must be led to believe that we are strong， in order that he may keep off. In fact， all the enemy’s movements should be determined by the signs that we choose to give him.” The following anecdote of 孫臏 Sun Pin， a descendant of Sun Wu， is related at length in the 史記， chap. 65: In 341 B.C.， the 齊 Ch‘i State being at war with 魏 Wei， sent 田忌 T‘ien Chi and Sun Pin against the general 龐涓 P‘ang Chüan， who happened to be a deadly personal enemy of the latter. Sun Pin said: “The Ch‘i State has a reputation for cowardice， and therefore our adversary despises us. Let us turn this circumstance to account.” Accordingly， when the army had crossed the border into Wei territory， he gave orders to show 100，000 fires on the first night， 50，000 on the next， and the night after only 20，000. P‘ang Chüan pursued them hotly， saying to himself: “I knew these men of Ch‘i were cowards: their numbers have already fallen away by more than half.” In his retreat， Sun Pin came to a narrow defile， which he calculated that his pursuers would reach after dark. Here he had a tree stripped of its bark， and inscribed upon it the words: “Under this tree shall P‘ang Chüan die.” Then， as night began to fall， he placed a strong body of archers in ambush near by， with orders to shoot directly they saw a light. Later on， P‘ang Chüan arrived at the spot， and noticing the tree， struck a light in order to read what was written on it. His body was immediately riddled by a volley of arrows， and his whole army thrown into confusion. [The above is Tu Mu’s version of the story; the Shih Chi， less dramatically but probably with more historical truth， makes P‘ang Chüan cut his own throat with an exclamation of despair， after the rout of his army.]

He sacrifices something， that the enemy may snatch at it.

予 here = 與.

20. 以利動之以卒待之

By holding out baits， he keeps him on the march; then with a body of picked men he lies in wait for him.

This would appear to be the meaning if we retain 卒， which Mei Yao-ch‘ên explains as 精卒 “men of spirit.” The T‘u Shu reads 本，{41} an emendation suggested by 李靖 Li Ching. The meaning then would be， “He lies in wait with the main body of his troops.”

21. 故善戰者求之於埶不責於东谈主故能擇东谈主而任埶

The clever combatant looks to the effect of combined energy， and does not require too much from individuals.

Tu Mu says: “He first of all considers the power of his army in the bulk; afterwards he takes individual talent into account， and uses each man according to his capabilities. He does not demand perfection from the untalented.”

Hence his ability to pick out the right men and to utilise combined energy.

Another reading has 之 instead of 埶. It would be interesting if Capt. Calthrop could tell us where the following occurs in the Chinese: “yet， when an opening or advantage shows， he pushes it to its limits.”

22. 任埶者其戰东谈主也如轉木石木石之性安則靜危則動方則止圓則行

When he utilises combined energy， his fighting men become as it were like unto rolling logs or stones. For it is the nature of a log or stone to remain motionless on level ground， and to move when on a slope; if four-cornered， to come to a standstill， but if round-shaped， to go rolling down.

Ts‘ao Kung calls this 任当然勢 “the use of natural or inherent power.” Capt. Calthrop ignores the last part of the sentence entirely. In its stead he has: “So await the opportunity， and so act when the opportunity arrives”—another absolutely gratuitous interpolation. The T‘ung Tien omits 任.

23. 故善戰东谈主之埶如轉圓石於千仞之山者埶也

Thus the energy developed by good fighting men is as the momentum of a round stone rolled down a mountain thousands of feet in height. So much on the subject of energy.

The T‘ung Tien omits 善. The chief lesson of this chapter， in Tu Mu’s opinion， is the paramount importance in war of rapid evolutions and sudden rushes. “Great results，” he adds， “can thus be achieved with small forces.”

Chang Yü attempts to explain the sequence of chapters as follows: “Chapter IV， on Tactical Dispositions， treated of the offensive and the defensive; chapter V， on Energy， dealt with direct and indirect methods. The good general acquaints himself first with the theory of attack and defence， and then turns his attention to direct and indirect methods. He studies the art of varying and combining these two methods before proceeding to the subject of weak and strong points. For the use of direct or indirect methods arises out of attack and defence， and the perception of weak and strong points depends again on the above methods. Hence the present chapter comes immediately after the chapter on Energy.”

1. 孫子曰凡先處戰地而待敵者佚後處戰地而趨戰者勞

Sun Tzŭ said: Whoever is first in the field and awaits the coming of the enemy， will be fresh for the fight; whoever is second in the field and has to hasten to battle， will arrive exhausted.

Instead of 處， the Yü Lan has in both clauses the stronger word 據. For the antithesis between 佚 and 勞， cf. I. § 23， where however 勞 is used as a verb.

2. 故善戰者致东谈主而不致於东谈主

Therefore the clever combatant imposes his will on the enemy， but does not allow the enemy’s will to be imposed on him.

The next paragraph makes it clear that 致 does not merely mean， as Tu Mu says， 令敵來就我 “to make the enemy approach me，” but rather to make him go in any direction I please. It is thus practically synonymous with 制. Cf. Tu Mu’s own note on V. § 19. One mark of a great soldier is that he fights on his own terms or fights not at all.[170]

{43}

3. 能使敵东谈主自至者利之也能使敵东谈主不得至者害之也

By holding out advantages to him， he can cause the enemy to approach of his own accord; or， by inflicting damage， he can make it impossible for the enemy to draw near.

In the first case， he will entice him with a bait; in the second， he will strike at some important point which the enemy will have to defend.

4. 故敵佚能勞之飽能飢之安能動之

If the enemy is taking his ease， he can harass him;

This passage may be cited as evidence against Mei Yao-Ch‘ên’s interpretation of I. § 23.

if well supplied with food， he can starve him out;

飢 is probably an older form than 饑， the reading of the original text. Both are given in the 說文.

if quietly encamped， he can force him to move.

The subject to 能 is still 善戰者; but these clauses would read better as direct admonitions， and in the next sentence we find Sun Tzŭ dropping insensibly into the imperative.

5. 出其所必趨趨其所不意

Appear at points which the enemy must hasten to defend; march swiftly to places where you are not expected.

The original text， adopted by the T‘u Shu， has 出其所不趨; it has been altered to suit the context and the commentaries of Ts‘ao Kung and Ho Shih， who evidently read 必趨. The other reading would mean: “Appear at points to which the enemy cannot hasten;” but in this case there is something awkward in the use of 趨. Capt. Calthrop is wrong of course with “appearing where the enemy is not.”

6. 行沉而不勞者行於無东谈主之地也

An army may march great distances without distress， if it marches through country where the enemy is not.

We must beware of understanding 無东谈主之地 as “uninhabited country.” Sun Tzŭ habitually uses 东谈主 in the sense of 敵， e.g. supra， § 2.{44} Ts‘ao Kung sums up very well: 出空擊虛避其所守擊其不意 “Emerge from the void [q.d. like “a bolt from the blue”]， strike at vulnerable points， shun places that are defended， attack in unexpected quarters.” The difference of meaning between 空 and 虛 is worth noting.

7. 攻而必取者攻其所不守也守而必固者守其所不攻也

You can be sure of succeeding in your attacks if you only attack places which are undefended.

所不守 is of course hyperbolical; Wang Hsi rightly explains it as “weak points; that is to say， where the general is lacking in capacity， or the soldiers in spirit; where the walls are not strong enough， or the precautions not strict enough; where relief comes too late， or provisions are too scanty， or the defenders are variance amongst themselves.”

You can ensure the safety of your defence if you only hold positions that cannot be attacked.

I.e.， where there are none of the weak points mentioned above. There is rather a nice point involved in the interpretation of this latter clause. Tu Mu， Ch‘ên Hao， and Mei Yao-ch‘ên assume the meaning to be: “In order to make your defence quite safe， you must defend even those places that are not likely to be attacked;” and Tu Mu adds: “How much more， then， those that will be attacked.” Taken thus， however， the clause balances less well with the preceding—always a consideration in the highly antithetical style which is natural to the Chinese. Chang Yü， therefore， seems to come nearer the mark in saying: “He who is skilled in attack flashes forth from the topmost heights of heaven [see IV. § 7]， making it impossible for the enemy to guard against him. This being so， the places that I shall attack are precisely those that the enemy cannot defend.... He who is skilled in defence hides in the most secret recesses of the earth， making it impossible for the enemy to estimate his whereabouts. This being so， the places that I shall hold are precisely those that the enemy cannot attack.”

8. 故善攻者敵不知其所守善守者敵不知其所攻

Hence that general is skilful in attack whose opponent does not know what to defend; and he is skilful in defence whose opponent does not know what to attack.

An aphorism which puts the whole art of war into a nutshell.

{45}

9. 微乎微乎至於無形神乎神乎至於無聲故能爲敵之司命

O divine art of subtlety and secrecy! Through you we learn to be invisible， through you inaudible;

Literally， “without form or sound，” but it is said of course with reference to the enemy. Chang Yü， whom I follow， draws no sharp distinction between 微 and 神， but Tu Mu and others think that 微 indicates the secrecy to be observed on the defensive， and 神 the rapidity to be displayed in attack. The Yü Lan text differs considerably from ours， reading: 微乎微乎故能隱於常形神乎神乎故能爲敵司命.

and hence we can hold the enemy’s fate in our hands.

The T‘ung Tien has 故能爲變化司命. Capt. Calthrop’s version of this paragraph is so remarkable that I cannot refrain from quoting it in full: “Now the secrets of the art of offence are not to be easily apprehended， as a certain shape or noise can be understood， of the senses; but when these secrets are once learnt， the enemy is mastered.”

10. 進而不可禦者衝其虛也退而不可追者速而不可及也

You may advance and be absolutely irresistible， if you make for the enemy’s weak points; you may retire and be safe from pursuit if your movements are more rapid than those of the enemy.

The second member of the sentence is weak， because 不可及 is nearly tautologous with 不可追. The Yü Lan reads 遠 for 速.

11. 闾阎欲戰敵雖高壘深溝不得不與我戰者攻其所必救也

If we wish to fight， the enemy can be forced to an engagement even though he be sheltered behind a high rampart and a deep ditch. All we need do is to attack some other place that he will be obliged to relieve.

Tu Mu says: “If the enemy is the invading party， we can cut his line of communications and occupy the roads by which he will have to return; if we are the invaders， we may direct our attack against the sovereign himself.” It is clear that Sun Tzŭ， unlike certain generals in the late Boer war， was no believer in frontal attacks.

{46}

12. 我不欲戰畫地而守之敵不得與我戰者乖其所之也

If we do not wish to fight， we can prevent the enemy from engaging us even though the lines of our encampment be merely traced out on the ground. All we need do is to throw something odd and unaccountable in his way.

In order to preserve the parallelism with § 11， I should prefer to follow the T‘u Shu text， which inserts 雖 before 畫地. This extremely concise expression is intelligibly paraphrased by Chia Lin: 雖未修壘壍 “even though we have constructed neither wall nor ditch.” The real crux of the passage lies in 乖其所之也. 之 of course = 至. Ts‘ao Kung defines 乖 by the word 戾， which is perhaps a case of obscurum per obscurius. Li Ch‘üan， however， says: 設奇異而疑之 “we puzzle him by strange and unusual dispositions;” and Tu Mu finally clinches the meaning by three illustrative anecdotes—one of 諸葛亮 Chu-ko Liang， who when occupying 陽平 Yang-p‘ing and about to be attacked by 司馬懿 Ssŭ-ma I， suddenly struck his colours， stopped the beating of the drums， and flung open the city gates， showing only a few men engaged in sweeping and sprinkling the ground. This unexpected proceeding had the intended effect; for Ssŭ-ma I， suspecting an ambush， actually drew off his army and retreated. What Sun Tzŭ is advocating here， therefore， is nothing more nor less than the timely use of “bluff.” Capt. Calthrop translates: “and prevent the enemy from attacking by keeping him in suspense，” which shows that he has not fully grasped the meaning of 乖.

13. 故形东谈主而我無形則我專而敵分

By discovering the enemy’s dispositions and remaining invisible ourselves， we can keep our forces concentrated， while the enemy’s must be divided.

The conclusion is perhaps not very obvious， but Chang Yü (after Mei Yao-ch‘ên) rightly explains it thus: “If the enemy’s dispositions are visible， we can make for him in one body; whereas， our own dispositions being kept secret， the enemy will be obliged to divide his forces in order to guard against attack from every quarter.” 形 is here used as an active verb: “to make to appear.” See IV， note on heading. Capt. Calthrop’s “making feints” is quite wrong.

{47}

14. 我專爲一敵分爲十是以十共其一也則我衆而敵寡

We can form a single united body， while the enemy must split up into fractions. Hence there will be a whole pitted against separate parts of a whole，

The original text has 以敵攻其一也， which in accordance with the T‘ung Tien and Yü Lan has been altered as above. I adopt the more plausible reading of the T‘u Shu: 是以十攻其一也， in spite of having to refer 十 to ourselves and not to the enemy. Thus Tu Yu and Mei Yao-ch‘ên both regard 十 as the undivided force， consisting of so many parts， and 一 as each of the isolated fractions of the enemy. The alteration of 攻 into 共 can hardly be right， though the true text might conceivably have been 是以十共攻其一也.

which means that we shall be many to the enemy’s few.

15. 能以衆擊寡者則吾之所與戰者約矣

And if we are able thus to attack an inferior force with a superior one， our opponents will be in dire straits.

For 擊， the T‘ung Tien and Yü Lan have 敵. Tu Yu， followed by the other commentators， arbitrarily defines 約 as 少而易勝 “few and easy to conquer，” but only succeeds thereby in making the sentence absolutely pointless. As for Capt. Calthrop’s translation: “In superiority of numbers there is economy of strength，” its meaning is probably known to himself alone. In justification of my own rendering of 約， I would refer to Lun Yü IV. 2 and VII. 25 (3).

16. 吾所與戰之地不可知不可知則敵所備者多敵所備者多則吾所與戰者寡矣

The spot where we intend to fight must not be made known; for then the enemy will have to prepare against a possible attack at several different points;

Sheridan once explained the reason of General Grant’s victories by saying that “while his opponents were kept fully employed wondering what he was going to do， he was thinking most of what he was going to do himself.”

and his forces being thus distributed in many directions， the numbers we shall have to face at any given point will be proportionately few.

{48}

17. 故備前則後寡備後則前寡備左則右寡備右則左寡無所不備則無所不寡

For should the enemy strengthen his van， he will weaken his rear; should he strengthen his rear， he will weaken his van; should he strengthen his left， he will weaken his right; should he strengthen his right， he will weaken his left. If he sends reinforcements everywhere， he will everywhere be weak.

In Frederick the Great’s Instructions to his Generals we read: “A defensive war is apt to betray us into too frequent detachment. Those generals who have had but little experience attempt to protect every point， while those who are better acquainted with their profession， having only the capital object in view， guard against a decisive blow， and acquiesce in smaller misfortunes to avoid greater.”

18. 寡者備东谈主者也衆者使东谈主備己者也

Numerical weakness comes from having to prepare against possible attacks; numerical strength， from compelling our adversary to make these preparations against us.

The highest generalship， in Col. Henderson’s words， is “to compel the enemy to disperse his army， and then to concentrate superior force against each fraction in turn.”

19. 故知戰之地知戰之日則可沉而會戰

Knowing the place and the time of the coming battle， we may concentrate from the greatest distances in order to fight.

There is nothing about “defeating” anybody in this sentence， as Capt. Calthrop translates. What Sun Tzŭ evidently has in mind is that nice calculation of distances and that masterly employment of strategy which enable a general to divide his army for the purpose of a long and rapid march， and afterwards to effect a junction at precisely the right spot and the right hour in order to confront the enemy in overwhelming strength. Among many such successful junctions which military history records， one of the most dramatic and decisive was the appearance of Blücher just at the critical moment on the field of Waterloo.

{49}

20. 不知戰地不知戰日則左不行救右右不行救左前不行救後後不行救前而況遠者數十里近者數里乎

But if neither time nor place be known， then the left wing will be impotent to succour the right， the right equally impotent to succour the left， the van unable to relieve the rear， or the rear to support the van. How much more so if the furthest portions of the army are anything under a hundred li apart， and even the nearest are separated by several li!

The Chinese of this last sentence is a little lacking in precision， but the mental picture we are required to draw is probably that of an army advancing towards a given rendez-vous in separate columns， each of which has orders to be there on a fixed date. If the general allows the various detachments to proceed at haphazard， without precise instructions as to the time and place of meeting， the enemy will be able to annihilate the army in detail. Chang Yü’s note may be worth quoting here: “If we do not know the place where our opponents mean to concentrate or the day on which they will join battle， our unity will be forfeited through our preparations for defence， and the positions we hold will be insecure. Suddenly happening upon a powerful foe， we shall be brought to battle in a flurried condition， and no mutual support will be possible between wings， vanguard or rear， especially if there is any great distance between the foremost and hindmost divisions of the army.”

21. 以吾度之越东谈主之兵雖多亦奚益於勝敗哉故曰勝可爲也

Though according to my estimate the soldiers of Yüeh exceed our own in number， that shall advantage them nothing in the matter of victory.

Capt. Calthrop omits 以吾度之， and his translation of the remainder is flabby and inaccurate. As Sun Tzŭ was in the service of the 吳 Wu State， it has been proposed to read 吳 instead of 吾—a wholly unnecessary tampering with the text. Yüeh coincided roughly with the present province of Chehkiang. Li Ch‘üan very strangely takes 越 not as the proper name， but in the sense of 過 “to surpass.” No other commentator follows him. 勝敗 belongs to the class of expressions like 遠近 “distance，” 大小 “magnitude，” etc.， to which the Chinese have to resort{50} in order to express abstract ideas of degree. The T‘u Shu， however， omits 敗.

I say then that victory can be achieved.

Alas for these brave words! The long feud between the two states ended in 473 B.C. with the total defeat of Wu by 勾踐 Kou Chien and its incorporation in Yüeh. This was doubtless long after Sun Tzŭ’s death. With his present assertion compare IV. § 4: 勝可知而不可爲 (which is the obviously mistaken reading of the Yü Lan here). Chang Yü is the only one to point out the seeming discrepancy， which he thus goes on to explain: “In the chapter on Tactical Dispositions it is said， ‘One may know how to conquer without being able to do it，’ whereas here we have the statement that ‘victory can be achieved.’ The explanation is， that in the former chapter， where the offensive and defensive are under discussion， it is said that if the enemy is fully prepared， one cannot make certain of beating him. But the present passage refers particularly to the soldiers of Yüeh who， according to Sun Tzŭ’s calculations， will be kept in ignorance of the time and place of the impending struggle. That is why he says here that victory can be achieved.”

22. 敵雖衆可使無鬥故策之而知得失之計

Though the enemy be stronger in numbers， we may prevent him from fighting.

Capt. Calthrop quite unwarrantably translates: “If the enemy be many in number， prevent him，” etc.

Scheme so as to discover his plans and the likelihood of their success.

This is the first of four similarly constructed sentences， all of which present decided difficulties. Chang Yü explains 知得失之計 as 知其計之得失. This is perhaps the best way of taking the words， though Chia Lin， referring 計 to ourselves and not the enemy， offers the alternative of 我得彼失之計齐先知也 “Know beforehand all plans conducive to our success and to the enemy’s failure.”

23. 作之而知動靜之理形之而知死生之地

Rouse him， and learn the principle of his activity or inactivity.

Instead of 作， the T‘ung Tien， Yü Lan， and also Li Ch‘üan’s text have 候， which the latter explains as “the observation of omens，” and Chia Lin simply as “watching and waiting.” 作 is defined by Tu Mu{51} as 激作， and Chang Yü tells us that by noting the joy or anger shown by the enemy on being thus disturbed， we shall be able to conclude whether his policy is to lie low or the reverse. He instances the action of Chu-ko Liang， who sent the scornful present of a woman’s head-dress to Ssŭ-ma I， in order to goad him out of his Fabian tactics.

Force him to reveal himself， so as to find out his vulnerable spots.

Two commentators， Li Ch‘üan and Chang Yü， take 形之 in the sense of 示之 “put on specious appearances.” The former says: “You may either deceive the enemy by a show of weakness—striking your colours and silencing your drums; or by a show of strength—making a hollow display of camp-fires and regimental banners.” And the latter quotes V. 19， where 形之 certainly seems to bear this sense. On the other hand， I would point to § 13 of this chapter， where 形 must with equal certainty be active. It is hard to choose between the two interpretations， but the context here agrees better， I think， with the one that I have adopted. Another difficulty arises over 死生之地， which most of the commentators， thinking no doubt of the 死地 in XI. § 1， refer to the actual ground on which the enemy is encamped. The notes of Chia Lin and Mei Yao-ch‘ên， however， seem to favour my view. The same phrase has a somewhat different meaning in I. § 2.

24. 角之而知有餘不足之處

Carefully compare the opposing army with your own，

Tu Yu is right， I think， in attributing this force to 角; Ts‘ao Kung defines it simply as 量. Capt. Calthrop surpasses himself with the staggering translation “Flap the wings”! Can the Latin cornu (in its figurative sense) have been at the back of his mind?

so that you may know where strength is superabundant and where it is deficient.

Cf. IV. § 6.

25. 故形兵之極至於無形無形則深閒不行窺知者不行謀

In making tactical dispositions， the highest pitch you can attain is to conceal them;

The piquancy of the paradox evaporates in translation. 無形 is perhaps not so much actual invisibility (see supra， § 9) as “showing no sign” of what you mean to do， of the plans that are formed in your brain.

{52}

conceal your dispositions， and you will be safe from the prying of the subtlest spies， from the machinations of the wisest brains.

深閒 is expanded by Tu Mu into 雖有閒者深來窺我. [For 閒， see XIII， note on heading.] He explains 知者 in like fashion: 雖有智能之士亦不行謀我也 “though the enemy may have clever and capable officers， they will not be able to lay any plans against us.”

26. 因形而錯勝於衆衆不行知

How victory may be produced for them out of the enemy’s own tactics—that is what the multitude cannot comprehend.探花 porn

All the commentators except Li Ch‘üan make 形 refer to the enemy. So Ts‘ao Kung: 因敵形而立勝. 錯 is defined as 置. The T‘u Shu has 措， with the same meaning. See IV. § 13. The Yü Lan reads 作， evidently a gloss.

27. 东谈主齐知我是以勝之形而莫知吾是以制勝之形

All men can see the tactics whereby I conquer， but what none can see is the strategy out of which victory is evolved.

I.e.， everybody can see superficially how a battle is won; what they cannot see is the long series of plans and combinations which has preceded the battle. It seems justifiable， then， to render the first 形 by “tactics” and the second by “strategy.”

28. 故其戰勝不復而應形於無窮

Do not repeat the tactics which have gained you one victory， but let your methods be regulated by the infinite variety of circumstances.

As Wang Hsi sagely remarks: “There is but one root-principle (理) underlying victory， but the tactics (形) which lead up to it are infinite in number.” With this compare Col. Henderson; “The rules of strategy are few and simple. They may be learned in a week. They may be taught by familiar illustrations or a dozen diagrams. But such knowledge will no more teach a man to lead an army like Napoleon than a knowledge of grammar will teach him to write like Gibbon.”

{53}

29. 夫兵形象水水之行避高而趨下

Military tactics are like unto water; for water in its natural course runs away from high places and hastens downwards.

行 is 劉晝子 Liu Chou-tzŭ’s reading for 形 in the original text.

30. 兵之形避實而擊虛

So in war， the way is to avoid what is strong and to strike at what is weak.

Like water， taking the line of least resistance.

31. 水因地而制流兵因敵而制勝

Water shapes its course according to the nature of the ground over which it flows;

The T‘ung Tien and Yü Lan read 制形，—the latter also 制行. The present text is derived from Chêng Yu-hsien.

the soldier works out his victory in relation to the foe whom he is facing.

32. 故兵無常勢水無常形

Therefore， just as water retains no constant shape， so in warfare there are no constant conditions.

33. 能因敵變化而取勝者謂之神

He who can modify his tactics in relation to his opponent and thereby succeed in winning， may be called a heaven-born captain.

34. 故五行無常勝四時無常位日有短長月有死生

The five elements

Water， fire， wood， metal， earth.

are not always equally predominant;

That is， as Wang Hsi says: 迭相克也 “they predominate alternately.”

{54}

the four seasons make way for each other in turn.

Literally， “have no invariable seat.”

There are short days and long; the moon has its periods of waning and waxing.

Cf. V. § 6. The purport of the passage is simply to illustrate the want of fixity in war by the changes constantly taking place in Nature. The comparison is not very happy， however， because the regularity of the phenomena which Sun Tzŭ mentions is by no means paralleled in war.

The commentators， as well as the subsequent text， make it clear that this is the real meaning of 軍爭. Thus， Li Ch‘üan says that 爭 means 趨利 “marching rapidly to seize an advantage”; Wang Hsi says: 爭者爭利得利則勝 “‘Striving’ means striving for an advantage; this being obtained， victory will follow;” and Chang Yü: 兩軍相對而爭利也 “The two armies face to face， and each striving to obtain a tactical advantage over the other.” According to the latter commentator， then， the situation is analogous to that of two wrestlers manœuvring for a “hold，” before coming to actual grips. In any case， we must beware of translating 爭 by the word “fighting” or “battle，” as if it were equivalent to 戰. Capt. Calthrop falls into this mistake.

1. 孫子曰凡用兵之法將革职於君

Sun Tzŭ said: In war， the general receives his commands from the sovereign.

For 君 there is another reading 天， which Li Ch‘üan explains as 恭行天罰 “being the reverent instrument of Heaven’s chastisement.”

2. 合軍聚衆交和而舍

Having collected an army and concentrated his forces， he must blend and harmonise the different elements thereof before pitching his camp.

Ts‘ao Kung takes 和 as referring to the 和門 or main gate of the military camp. This， Tu Mu tells us， was formed with a couple of flags hung across. [Cf. Chou Li， ch. xxvii. fol. 31 of the Imperial edition: 直旌門.] 交和 would then mean “setting up his 和門 opposite that of the enemy.” But Chia Lin’s explanation， which has been adopted{56} above， is on the whole simpler and better. Chang Yü， while following Ts‘ao Kung， adds that the words may also be taken to mean “the establishment of harmony and confidence between the higher and lower ranks before venturing into the field;” and he quotes a saying of Wu Tzŭ (chap. 1 ad init.): “Without harmony in the State， no military expedition can be undertaken; without harmony in the army， no battle array can be formed.” In the historical romance 東周列國， chap. 75， Sun Tzŭ himself is represented as saying to 伍員 Wu Yüan: 大凡行兵之法先除內患然後方可外征 “As a general rule， those who are waging war should get rid of all domestic troubles before proceeding to attack the external foe.” 舍 is defined as 止. It here conveys the notion of encamping after having taken the field.

3. 莫難於軍爭軍爭之難者以迂爲直以患爲利

After that， comes tactical manœuvring， than which there is nothing more difficult.

I have departed slightly from the traditional interpretation of Ts‘ao Kung， who says: 從始革职至於交和軍爭難也 “From the time of receiving the sovereign’s instructions until our encampment over against the enemy， the tactics to be pursued are most difficult.” It seems to me that the 軍爭 tactics or manœuvres can hardly be said to begin until the army has sallied forth and encamped， and Ch‘ên Hao’s note gives colour to this view: “For levying， concentrating， harmonising and intrenching an army， there are plenty of old rules which will serve. The real difficulty comes when we engage in tactical operations.” Tu Yu also observes that “the great difficulty is to be beforehand with the enemy in seizing favourable positions.”

The difficulty of tactical manœuvring consists in turning the devious into the direct， and misfortune into gain.

以迂爲直 is one of those highly condensed and somewhat enigmatical expressions of which Sun Tzŭ is so fond. This is how it is explained by Ts‘ao Kung: 示以遠速其谈里先敵至也 “Make it appear that you are a long way off， then cover the distance rapidly and arrive on the scene before your opponent.” Tu Mu says: “Hoodwink the enemy， so that he may be remiss and leisurely while you are dashing along with the utmost speed.” Ho Shih gives a slightly different turn to the sentence: “Although you may have difficult ground to traverse and natural obstacles to encounter， this is a drawback which{57} can be turned into actual advantage by celerity of movement.” Signal examples of this saying are afforded by the two famous passages across the Alps—that of Hannibal， which laid Italy at his mercy， and that of Napoleon two thousand years later， which resulted in the great victory of Marengo.

4. 故迂其途而誘之以利後东谈主發先东谈主至此知迂直之計者也

Thus， to take a long and circuitous route， after enticing the enemy out of the way， and though starting after him， to contrive to reach the goal before him， shows knowledge of the artifice of deviation.

Chia Lin understands 途 as the enemy’s line of march， thus: “If our adversary’s course is really a short one， and we can manage to divert him from it (迂之) either by simulating weakness or by holding out some small advantage， we shall be able to beat him in the race for good positions.” This is quite a defensible view， though not adopted by any other commentator. 东谈主 of course = 敵， and 後 and 先 are to be taken as verbs. Tu Mu cites the famous march of 趙奢 Chao Shê in 270 B.C. to relieve the town of 閼與 O-yü， which was closely invested by a 秦 Ch‘in army. [It should be noted that the above is the correct pronunciation of 閼與， as given in the commentary on the Ch‘ien Han Shu， ch. 34. Giles’ dictionary gives “Yü-yü，” and Chavannes， I know not on what authority， prefers to write “Yen-yü.” The name is omitted altogether from Playfair’s “Cities and Towns.”] The King of Chao first consulted 廉頗 Lien P‘o on the advisability of attempting a relief， but the latter thought the distance too great， and the intervening country too rugged and difficult. His Majesty then turned to Chao Shê， who fully admitted the hazardous nature of the march， but finally said: “We shall be like two rats fighting in a hole—and the pluckier one will win!” So he left the capital with his army， but had only gone a distance of 30 li when he stopped and began throwing up intrenchments. For 28 days he continued strengthening his fortifications， and took care that spies should carry the intelligence to the enemy. The Ch‘in general was overjoyed， and attributed his adversary’s tardiness to the fact that the beleaguered city was in the Han State， and thus not actually part of Chao territory. But the spies had no sooner departed than Chao Shê began a forced march lasting for two days and one night， and arrived on the scene of action with such astonishing rapidity that he was able to occupy a commanding position on the 北山 “North hill” before the enemy{58} had got wind of his movements. A crushing defeat followed for the Ch‘in forces， who were obliged to raise the siege of O-yü in all haste and retreat across the border. [See 史記， chap. 81.]

5. 故軍爭爲利衆爭爲危

Manœuvring with an army is advantageous; with an undisciplined multitude， most dangerous.

I here adopt the reading of the T‘ung Tien， Chêng Yu-hsien and the T‘u Shu， where 衆 appears to supply the exact nuance required in order to make sense. The standard text， on the other hand， in which 軍 is repeated， seems somewhat pointless. The commentators take it to mean that manœuvres may be profitable， or they may be dangerous: it all depends on the ability of the general. Capt. Calthrop translates 衆爭 “the wrangles of a multitude”!

6. 舉軍而爭利則不足委軍而爭利則輜重捐

If you set a fully equipped army in march in order to snatch an advantage， the chances are that you will be too late.

The original text has 故 instead of 舉; but a verb is needed to balance 委.

On the other hand， to detach a flying column for the purpose involves the sacrifice of its baggage and stores.

委軍 is evidently unintelligible to the Chinese commentators， who paraphrase the sentence as though it began with 棄輜. Absolute tautology in the apodosis can then only be avoided by drawing an impossibly fine distinction between 棄 and 捐. I submit my own rendering without much enthusiasm， being convinced that there is some deep-seated corruption in the text. On the whole， it is clear that Sun Tzŭ does not approve of a lengthy march being undertaken without supplies. Cf. infra， § 11.

7. 是故卷甲而趨昼夜不處倍谈兼行百里而爭利則擒三將軍

Thus， if you order your men to roll up their buff-coats，

卷甲 does not mean “to discard one’s armour，” as Capt. Calthrop translates， but implies on the contrary that it is to be carried with you. Chang Yü says: 猶悉甲也 “This means， in full panoply.”

{59}

and make forced marches without halting day or night， covering double the usual distance at a stretch，

The ordinary day’s march， according to Tu Mu， was 30 li; but on one occasion， when pursuing 劉備 Liu Pei， Ts‘ao Ts‘ao is said to have covered the incredible distance of 300 li within twenty-four hours.

doing a hundred li in order to wrest an advantage， the leaders of all your three divisions will fall into the hands of the enemy.

8. 勁者先罷者後其法十一而至

The stronger men will be in front， the jaded ones will fall behind， and on this plan only one-tenth of your army will reach its destination.

For 罷， see II. § 14. The moral is， as Ts‘ao Kung and others point out: Don’t march a hundred li to gain a tactical advantage， either with or without impedimenta. Manœuvres of this description should be confined to short distances. Stonewall Jackson said: “The hardships of forced marches are often more painful than the dangers of battle.” He did not often call upon his troops for extraordinary exertions. It was only when he intended a surprise， or when a rapid retreat was imperative， that he sacrificed everything to speed.[171]

9. 五十里而爭利則蹶上將軍其法半至

If you march fifty li in order to outmanœuvre the enemy， you will lose the leader of your first division， and only half your force will reach the goal.

蹶 is explained as similar in meaning to 挫: literally， “the leader of the first division will be torn away.” Cf. Tso Chuan， 襄 19th year: 是謂蹶其本 “This is a case of [the falling tree] tearing up its roots.”

10. 三十里而爭利則三分之二至

If you march thirty li with the same object， two-thirds of your army will arrive.

In the T‘ung Tien is added: 以是知軍爭之難 “From this we may know the difficulty of manœuvring.”

{60}

11. 是故軍無輜重則一火無糧食則一火無委積則一火

We may take it then that an army without its baggage-train is lost; without provisions it is lost; without bases of supply it is lost.

委積 is explained by Tu Yu as 芻草之屬 “fodder and the like;” by Tu Mu and Chang Yü as 財貨 “goods in general;” and by Wang Hsi as 薪鹽蔬材之屬 “fuel， salt， foodstuffs， etc.” But I think what Sun Tzŭ meant was “stores accumulated in dépôts，” as distinguished from 輜重 and 糧食， the various impedimenta accompanying an army on its march. Cf. Chou Li， ch. xvi. fol. 10: 委东谈主 ... 斂薪芻凡疏材木柴凡畜聚之物.

12. 故不知諸侯之謀者不行豫交

We cannot enter into alliances until we are acquainted with the designs of our neighbours.

豫 = 先. Li Ch‘üan understands it as 備 “guard against，” which is hardly so good. An original interpretation of 交 is given by Tu Mu， who says it stands for 交兵 or 合戰 “join in battle.”

13. 不知山林險阻沮澤之形者不行行軍

We are not fit to lead an army on the march unless we are familiar with the face of the country—its mountains and forests， its pitfalls

險， defined as 坑塹 (Ts‘ao Kung) or 坑坎 (Chang Yü).

and precipices，

阻， defined as 一高一下.

its marshes

沮， defined as 水草漸洳者.

and swamps.

澤， defined as 衆水所歸而不流者.

14. 不必鄉導者不行得地利

We shall be unable to turn natural advantages to account unless we make use of local guides.

§§ 12–14 are repeated in chap. XI. § 52.

{61}

15. 故兵以詐立以利動

In war， practise dissimulation， and you will succeed.

According to Tu Mu， 立 stands for 立勝. Cf. I. § 18. In the tactics of Turenne， deception of the enemy， especially as to the numerical strength of his troops， took a very prominent position.[172]

Move only if there is a real advantage to be gained.

This is the interpretation of all the commentators except Wang Hsi， who has the brief note 誘之也 “Entice out the enemy” (by offering him some apparent advantage).

16. 以分合爲變者也

Whether to concentrate or to divide your troops， must be decided by circumstances.

17. 故其疾如風其徐如林

Let your rapidity be that of the wind，

The simile is doubly appropriate， because the wind is not only swift but， as Mei Yao-ch‘ên points out， 無形跡 “invisible and leaves no tracks.”

your compactness that of the forest.

It is hardly possible to take 徐 here in its ordinary sense of “sedate，” as Tu Yu tries to do. Mêng Shih comes nearer the mark in his note 緩行須有行列 “When slowly marching， order and ranks must be preserved”—so as to guard against surprise attacks. But natural forests do not grow in rows， whereas they do generally possess the quality of density or compactness. I think then that Mei Yao-ch‘ên uses the right adjective in saying 如林之森然.

18. 侵掠如火不動如山

In raiding and plundering be like fire，

Cf. Shih Ching， IV. 3. iv. 6: 如火烈烈則莫我敢曷 “Fierce as a blazing fire which no man can check.”

in immovability like a mountain.

That is， when holding a position from which the enemy is trying to dislodge you， or perhaps， as Tu Yu says， when he is trying to entice you into a trap.

{62}

19. 難知如陰動如雷霆

Let your plans be dark and impenetrable as night， and when you move， fall like a thunderbolt.

The original text has 震 instead of 霆. Cf. IV. § 7. Tu Yu quotes a saying of T‘ai Kung which has passed into a proverb: 疾雷不足掩耳疾電不足瞑目 “You cannot shut your ears to the thunder or your eyes to the lightning—so rapid are they.” Likewise， an attack should be made so quickly that it cannot be parried.

20. 掠鄉分衆廓地分利

When you plunder a countryside， let the spoil be divided amongst your men;

The reading of Tu Yu， Chia Lin， and apparently Ts‘ao Kung， is 指向分衆， which is explained as referring to the subdivision of the army， mentioned in V. §§ 1， 2， by means of banners and flags， serving to point out (指) to each man the way he should go (向). But this is very forced， and the ellipsis is too great， even for Sun Tzŭ. Luckily， the T‘ung Tien and Yü Lan have the variant 嚮， which not only suggests the true reading 鄉， but affords some clue to the way in which the corruption arose. Some early commentator having inserted 向 as the sound of 鄉， the two may afterwards have been read as one character; and this being interchangeable with 向， 鄉 must finally have disappeared altogether. Meanwhile， 掠 would have been altered to 指 in order to make sense. As regards 分衆， I believe that Ho Shih alone has grasped the real meaning， the other commentators understanding it as “dividing the men into parties” to search for plunder. Sun Tzŭ wishes to lessen the abuses of indiscriminate plundering by insisting that all booty shall be thrown into a common stock， which may afterwards be fairly divided amongst all.

when you capture new territory， cut it up into allotments for the benefit of the soldiery.

That this is the meaning， may be gathered from Tu Mu’s note: 開土拓境則分割與有功者. The 三略 gives the same advice: 獲地裂之. 廓 means “to enlarge” or “extend”—at the expense of the enemy， understood. Cf. Shih Ching， III. 1. vii. 1: 憎其式廓 “hating all the great States.” Ch‘ên Hao also says 屯兵種蒔 “quarter your soldiers on the land， and let them sow and plant{63} it.” It is by acting on this principle， and harvesting the lands they invaded， that the Chinese have succeeded in carrying out some of their most memorable and triumphant expeditions， such as that of 班超 Pan Ch‘ao who penetrated to the Caspian， and in more recent years， those of 福康安 Fu-k‘ang-an and 左宗棠 Tso Tsung-t‘ang.

21. 懸權而動

Ponder and deliberate

Note that both these words， like the Chinese 懸權， are really metaphors derived from the use of scales.

before you make a move.

Chang Yü quotes 尉繚子 as saying that we must not break camp until we have gauged the resisting power of the enemy and the cleverness of the opposing general. Cf. the “seven comparisons” in I. § 13. Capt. Calthrop omits this sentence.

22. 先知迂直之計者勝此軍爭之法也

He will conquer who has learnt the artifice of deviation.

See supra， §§ 3， 4.

Such is the art of manœuvring.

With these words， the chapter would naturally come to an end. But there now follows a long appendix in the shape of an extract from an earlier book on War， now lost， but apparently extant at the time when Sun Tzŭ wrote. The style of this fragment is not noticeably different from that of Sun Tzŭ himself， but no commentator raises a doubt as to its genuineness.

23. 軍政曰言不相聞故爲金饱读視不相見故爲旗号

The Book of Army Management says:

It is perhaps significant that none of the earlier commentators give us any information about this work. Mei Yao-ch‘ên calls it 軍之舊典 “an ancient military classic，” and Wang Hsi， 古軍書 “an old book on war.” Considering the enormous amount of fighting that had gone on for centuries before Sun Tzŭ’s time between the various kingdoms and principalities of China， it is not in itself improbable that a collection of military maxims should have been made and written down at some earlier period.

{64}

On the field of battle，

Implied， though not actually in the Chinese.

the spoken word does not carry far enough: hence the institution of gongs and drums.

I have retained the words 金饱读 of the original text， which recur in the next paragraph， in preference to the other reading 饱读鐸 “drums and bells，” which is found in the T‘ung Tien， Pei T‘ang Shu Ch‘ao and Yü Lan. 鐸 is a bell with a clapper. See Lun Yü III. 24， Chou Li XXIX. 15， 29. 金 of course would include both gongs and bells of every kind. The T‘u Shu inserts a 之 after each 爲.

Nor can ordinary objects be seen clearly enough: hence the institution of banners and flags.

24. 夫金饱读旗号者是以一民之耳目也

Gongs and drums， banners and flags， are means whereby the ears and eyes of the host

The original text， followed by the T‘u Shu， has 东谈主 for 民 here and in the next two paragraphs. But， as we have seen， 东谈主 is generally used in Sun Tzŭ for the enemy.

may be focussed on one particular point.

Note the use of 一 as a verb. Chang Yü says: 視聽均齊則雖百萬之衆進退如一矣 “If sight and hearing converge simultaneously on the same object， the evolutions of as many as a million soldiers will be like those of a single man”!

25. 民既專一則勇者不得獨進怯者不得獨退此用衆之法也

The host thus forming a single united body， it is impossible either for the brave to advance alone， or for the cowardly to retreat alone.

Chang Yü quotes a saying: 令不進而進與令不退而退厥罪惟均 “Equally guilty are those who advance against orders and those who retreat against orders.” Tu Mu tells a story in this connection of 吳起 Wu Ch‘i， when he was fighting against the Ch‘in State. Before the battle had begun， one of his soldiers， a man of matchless daring， sallied forth by himself， captured two heads from the enemy， and{65} returned to camp. Wu Ch‘i had the man instantly executed， whereupon an officer ventured to remonstrate， saying: “This man was a good soldier， and ought not to have been beheaded.” Wu Ch‘i replied: “I fully believe he was a good soldier， but I had him beheaded because he acted without orders.”

This is the art of handling large masses of men.

26. 故夜戰多火饱读晝戰多旗号是以變民之耳目也

In night-fighting， then， make much use of signal-fires and drums， and in fighting by day， of flags and banners， as a means of influencing the ears and eyes of your army.

The T‘ung Tien has the bad variant 便 for 變. With regard to the latter word， I believe I have hit off the right meaning， the whole phrase being slightly elliptical for “influencing the movements of the army through their senses of sight and hearing.” Li Ch‘üan， Tu Mu and Chia Lin certainly seem to understand it thus. The other commentators， however， take 民 (or 东谈主) as the enemy， and 變 as equivalent to 變惑 or 變亂 “to perplex” or “confound.” This does not agree so well with what has gone before， though on the other hand it renders the transition to § 27 less abrupt. The whole question， I think， hinges on the alternative readings 民 and 东谈主. The latter would almost certainly denote the enemy. Ch‘ên Hao alludes to 李光弼 Li Kuang-pi’s night ride to 河陽 Ho-yang at the head of 500 mounted men; they made such an imposing display with torches， that though the rebel leader 史想明 Shih Ssŭ-ming had a large army， he did not dare to dispute their passage. [Ch‘ên Hao gives the date as 天寳末 A.D. 756; but according to the 新唐書 New T‘ang History， 列傳 61， it must have been later than this， probably 760.]

27. 故三軍可奪氣將軍可奪心

A whole army may be robbed of its spirit;

“In war，” says Chang Yü， “if a spirit of anger can be made to pervade all ranks of an army at one and the same time， its onset will be irresistible. Now the spirit of the enemy’s soldiers will be keenest when they have newly arrived on the scene， and it is therefore our cue not to fight at once， but to wait until their ardour and enthusiasm have worn off， and then strike. It is in this way that they may be robbed of their keen spirit.” Li Ch‘üan and others tell an anecdote (to be found in the Tso Chuan，{66} 莊公 year 10， § 1) of 曹劌 Ts‘ao Kuei， a protégé of Duke Chuang of Lu. The latter State was attacked by Ch‘i， and the Duke was about to join battle at 長勺 Ch‘ang-cho， after the first roll of the enemy’s drums， when Ts‘ao said: “Not just yet.” Only after their drums had beaten for the third time， did he give the word for attack. Then they fought， and the men of Ch‘i were utterly defeated. Questioned afterwards by the Duke as to the meaning of his delay， Ts‘ao Kuei replied: “In battle， a courageous spirit is everything. Now the first roll of the drum tends to create this spirit， but with the second it is already on the wane， and after the third it is gone altogether. I attacked when their spirit was gone and ours was at its height. Hence our victory.” 吳子 (chap. 4) puts “spirit” first among the “four important influences” in war， and continues: 三軍之衆百萬之師張設輕重在於一东谈主是謂氣機 “The value of a whole army—a mighty host of a million men—is dependent on one man alone: such is the influence of spirit!”

a commander-in-chief may be robbed of his presence of mind.

Capt. Calthrop goes woefully astray with “defeat his general’s ambition.” Chang Yü says: 心者將之所主也夫治亂勇怯齐主於心 “Presence of mind is the general’s most important asset. It is the quality which enables him to discipline disorder and to inspire courage into the panic-stricken.” The great general 李靖 Li Ching (A.D. 571–649) has a saying: 夫攻者不啻攻其城擊其陳费力必有攻其心之術焉 “Attacking does not merely consist in assaulting walled cities or striking at an army in battle array; it must include the art of assailing the enemy’s mental equilibrium.” [問對， pt. 3.]

28. 是故朝氣銳晝氣惰暮氣歸

Now a soldier’s spirit is keenest in the morning;

Always provided， I suppose， that he has had breakfast. At the battle of the Trebia， the Romans were foolishly allowed to fight fasting， whereas Hannibal’s men had breakfasted at their leisure. See Livy， XXI， liv. 8， lv. 1 and 8.

by noonday it has begun to flag; and in the evening， his mind is bent only on returning to camp.

29. 故善用兵者避其銳氣擊其惰歸此治氣者也

A clever general， therefore，

{67}

The 故， which certainly seems to be wanted here， is omitted in the T‘u Shu.

avoids an army when its spirit is keen， but attacks it when it is sluggish and inclined to return. This is the art of studying moods.

The T‘ung Tien， for reasons of 避諱 “avoidance of personal names of the reigning dynasty，” reads 理 for 治 in this and the two next paragraphs.

30. 以治待亂以靜待譁此治心者也

Disciplined and calm， to await the appearance of disorder and hubbub amongst the enemy:—this is the art of retaining self-possession.

31. 以近待遠以佚待勞以飽待飢此治力者也

To be near the goal while the enemy is still far from it， to wait at ease

The T‘ung Tien has 逸 for 佚. The two characters are practically synonymous， but according to the commentary， the latter is the form always used in Sun Tzŭ.

while the enemy is toiling and struggling， to be well-fed while the enemy is famished:—this is the art of husbanding one’s strength.

32. 無要正正堂堂勿擊堂堂之陳此治變者也

To refrain from intercepting

邀 is the reading of the original text. But the 兵書要訣 quotes the passage with 要 yao1 (also meaning “to intercept”)， and this is supported by the Pei T‘ang Shu Ch‘ao the Yü Lan， and Wang Hsi’s text.

an enemy whose banners are in perfect order， to refrain from attacking an army drawn up in calm and confident array:

For this translation of 堂堂， I can appeal to the authority of Tu Mu， who defines the phrase as 無懼. The other commentators mostly follow Ts‘ao Kung， who says 大， probably meaning “grand and imposing”. Li Ch‘üan， however， has 部分 “in subdivisions，” which is somewhat strange.

{68}

—this is the art of studying circumstances.

I have not attempted a uniform rendering of the four phrases 治氣， 治心， 治力 and 治變， though 治 really bears the same meaning in each case. It is to be taken， I think， not in the sense of “to govern” or “control，” but rather， as K‘ang Hsi defines it， = 簡習 “to examine and practise，” hence “look after，” “keep a watchful eye upon.” We may find an example of this use in the Chou Li， XVIII. fol. 46: 治其大禮. Sun Tzŭ has not told us to control or restrain the quality which he calls 氣， but only to observe the time at which it is strongest. As for 心， it is important to remember that in the present context it can only mean “presence of mind.” To speak of “controlling presence of mind” is absurd， and Capt. Calthrop’s “to have the heart under control” is hardly less so. The whole process recommended here is that of VI. § 2: 致东谈主而不致於东谈主.

33. 故用兵之法高陵勿向背邱勿逆

It is a military axiom not to advance uphill against the enemy， nor to oppose him when he comes downhill.

The Yü Lan reads 倍 for 背.

34. 佯北勿從銳卒勿攻

Do not pursue an enemy who simulates flight; do not attack soldiers whose temper is keen.

35. 餌兵勿食歸師勿遏

Do not swallow a bait offered by the enemy.

Li Ch‘üan and Tu Mu， with extraordinary inability to see a metaphor， take these words quite literally of food and drink that have been poisoned by the enemy. Ch‘ên Hao and Chang Yü carefully point out that the saying has a wider application. The T‘ung Tien reads 貪 “to covet” instead of 食. The similarity of the two characters sufficiently accounts for the mistake.

Do not interfere with an army that is returning home.

The commentators explain this rather singular piece of advice by saying that a man whose heart is set on returning home will fight to the death against any attempt to bar his way， and is therefore too dangerous an opponent to be tackled. Chang Yü quotes the words of Han Hsin: 從想東歸之士何所不克 “Invincible is the soldier who hath his desire and returneth homewards.” A marvellous tale is told of{69} Ts‘ao Ts‘ao’s courage and resource in ch. 1 of the San Kuo Chih， 武帝紀: In 198 A.D.， he was besieging 張繡 Chang Hsiu in 穰 Jang， when 劉表 Liu Piao sent reinforcements with a view to cutting off Ts‘ao’s retreat. The latter was obliged to draw off his troops， only to find himself hemmed in between two enemies， who were guarding each outlet of a narrow pass in which he had engaged himself. In this desperate plight Ts‘ao waited until nightfall， when he bored a tunnel into the mountain side and laid an ambush in it. Then he marched on with his baggage-train， and when it grew light， Chang Hsiu， finding that the bird had flown， pressed after him in hot pursuit. As soon as the whole army had passed by， the hidden troops fell on its rear， while Ts‘ao himself turned and met his pursuers in front， so that they were thrown into confusion and annihilated. Ts‘ao Ts‘ao said afterwards: 虜遏吾歸師而與吾死地戰吾是以知勝矣 “The brigands tried to check my army in its retreat and brought me to battle in a desperate position: hence I knew how to overcome them.”

36. 圍師必闕窮宼勿迫

When you surround an army， leave an outlet free.

This does not mean that the enemy is to be allowed to escape. The object， as Tu Mu puts it， is 示以生路令無必死之心 “to make him believe that there is a road to safety， and thus prevent his fighting with the courage of despair.” Tu Mu adds pleasantly: 因而擊之 “After that， you may crush him.”

Do not press a desperate foe too hard.

For 迫， the T‘u Shu reads 追 “pursue.” Ch‘ên Hao quotes the saying: 鳥窮則搏獸窮則噬 “Birds and beasts when brought to bay will use their claws and teeth.” Chang Yü says: 敵若焚舟破釜決一戰則不可逼迫來 “If your adversary has burned his boats and destroyed his cooking-pots， and is ready to stake all on the issue of a battle， he must not be pushed to extremities.” The phrase 窮宼 doubtless originated with Sun Tzŭ. The P‘ei Wên Yün Fu gives four examples of its use， the earliest being from the Ch‘ien Han Shu， and I have found another in chap. 34 of the same work. Ho Shih illustrates the meaning by a story taken from the life of 符彥卿 Fu Yen-ch‘ing in ch. 251 of the 宋史. That general， together with his colleague 杜重威 Tu Chung-wei， was surrounded by a vastly superior army of Khitans in the year 945 A.D. The country was bare and desert-like， and the little Chinese force was soon in dire straits for want of{70} water. The wells they bored ran dry， and the men were reduced to squeezing lumps of mud and sucking out the moisture. Their ranks thinned rapidly， until at last Fu Yen-ch‘ing exclaimed: “We are desperate men. Far better to die for our country than to go with fettered hands into captivity!” A strong gale happened to be blowing from the north-east and darkening the air with dense clouds of sandy dust. Tu Chung-wei was for waiting until this had abated before deciding on a final attack; but luckily another officer， 李守貞 Li Shou-chêng by name， was quicker to see an opportunity， and said: “They are many and we are few， but in the midst of this sandstorm our numbers will not be discernible; victory will go to the strenuous fighter， and the wind will be our best ally.” Accordingly， Fu Yen-ch‘ing made a sudden and wholly unexpected onslaught with his cavalry， routed the barbarians and succeeded in breaking through to safety. [Certain details in the above account have been added from the 歴代紀事年表， ch. 78.]

37. 此用兵之法也

Such is the art of warfare.

Chêng Yu-hsien in his 遺說 inserts 妙 after 法. I take it that these words conclude the extract from the 軍政 which began at § 23.

The heading means literally “The Nine Variations，” but as Sun Tzŭ does not appear to enumerate these， and as， indeed， he has already told us (V. §§ 6–11) that such deflections from the ordinary course are practically innumerable， we have little option but to follow Wang Hsi， who says that “Nine” stands for an indefinitely large number. “All it means is that in warfare 當極其變 we ought to vary our tactics to the utmost degree ... I do not know what Ts‘ao Kung makes these Nine Variations out to be [the latter’s note is 變其正得其所用九也]， but it has been suggested that they are connected with the Nine Situations”—of chap. XI. This is the view adopted by Chang Yü: see note on 死地， § 2. The only other alternative is to suppose that something has been lost—a supposition to which the unusual shortness of the chapter lends some weight.

1. 孫子曰凡用兵之法將革职於君合軍聚衆

Sun Tzŭ said: In war， the general receives his commands from the sovereign， collects his army and concentrates his forces.

Repeated from VII. § 1， where it is certainly more in place. It may have been interpolated here merely in order to supply a beginning to the chapter.

2. 圮地無舍衢地合交絶地無留圍地則謀死地則戰

When in difficult country， do not encamp.

For explanation of 圮地， see XI. § 8.

In country where high roads intersect， join hands with your allies.

See XI， §§ 6， 12. Capt. Calthrop omits 衢地.

{72}

Do not linger in dangerously isolated positions.

絶地 is not one of the Nine Situations as given in the beginning of chap. XI， but occurs later on (ibid. § 43， q.v.). We may compare it with 重地 (XI. § 7). Chang Yü calls it a 危絶之地， situated across the frontier， in hostile territory. Li Ch‘üan says it is “country in which there are no springs or wells， flocks or herds， vegetables or firewood;” Chia Lin， “one of gorges， chasms and precipices， without a road by which to advance.”

In hemmed-in situations， you must resort to stratagem.

See XI. §§ 9， 14. Capt. Calthrop has “mountainous and wooded country，” which is a quite inadequate translation of 圍.

In a desperate position， you must fight.

See XI. §§ 10， 14. Chang Yü has an important note here， which must be given in full. “From 圮地無舍，” he says， “down to this point， the Nine Variations are presented to us. The reason why only five are given is that the subject is treated en précis (舉其粗略也). So in chap. XI， where he discusses the variations of tactics corresponding to the Nine Grounds， Sun Tzŭ mentions only six variations; there again we have an abridgment. [I cannot understand what Chang Yü means by this statement. He can only be referring to §§ 11–14 or §§ 46–50 of chap. XI; but in both places all the nine grounds are discussed. Perhaps he is confusing these with the Six 地形 of chap. X.] All kinds of ground have corresponding military positions， and also a variation of tactics suitable to each (凡地有勢有變). In chap. XI， what we find enumerated first [§§ 2–10] are the situations; afterwards [§§ 11–14] the corresponding tactics. Now， how can we tell that the 九變 “Nine Variations” are simply the 九地之變 “variations of tactics corresponding to the Nine Grounds”? It is said further on [§ 5] that ‘the general who does not understand the nine variations of tactics may be well acquainted with the features of the country， yet he will not be able to turn his knowledge to practical account.’ Again， in chap. XI [§ 41] we read: ‘The different measures adapted to the nine varieties of ground (九地之變) and the expediency of aggressive or defensive tactics must be carefully examined.’ From a consideration of these passages the meaning is made clear. When later on the nine grounds are enumerated， Sun Tzŭ recurs to these nine variations. He wishes here to speak of the Five Advantages [see infra， § 6]， so he begins by setting forth the Nine Variations. These are inseparably connected in practice， and therefore they are dealt with together.” The weak point of this argument is the suggestion that 五事 “five things” can stand as a 大畧， that is， an{73} abstract or abridgment， of nine， when those that are omitted are not less important than those that appear， and when one of the latter is not included amongst the nine at all.

3. 塗有所不由軍有所不擊城有所不攻地有所不爭君命有所不受

There are roads which must not be followed，

“Especially those leading through narrow defiles，” says Li Ch‘üan， “where an ambush is to be feared.”

armies which must not be attacked，

More correctly， perhaps， “there are times when an army must not be attacked.” Ch‘ên Hao says: “When you see your way to obtain a trivial advantage， but are powerless to inflict a real defeat， refrain from attacking， for fear of overtaxing your men’s strength.”

towns

Capt. Calthrop says “castles”—an unfortunate attempt to introduce local colour.

which must not be besieged，

Cf. III. § 4. Ts‘ao Kung gives an interesting illustration from his own experience. When invading the territory of 徐州 Hsü-chou， he ignored the city of 華費 Hua-pi， which lay directly in his path， and pressed on into the heart of the country. This excellent strategy was rewarded by the subsequent capture of no fewer than fourteen important district cities. Chang Yü says: “No town should be attacked which， if taken， cannot be held， or if left alone， will not cause any trouble.” 荀罃 Hsün Ying， when urged to attack 偪陽 Pi-yang， replied: “The city is small and well-fortified; even if I succeed in taking it， ’t will be no great feat of arms; whereas if I fail， I shall make myself a laughing-stock.” In the seventeenth century， sieges still formed a large proportion of war. It was Turenne who directed attention to the importance of marches， countermarches and manœuvres. He said: “It is a great mistake to waste men in taking a town when the same expenditure of soldiers will gain a province.”[173]

positions which must not be contested， commands of the sovereign which must not be obeyed.

This is a hard saying for the Chinese， with their reverence for authority， and Wei Liao Tzŭ (quoted by Tu Mu) is moved to exclaim:{74} 兵者凶器也爭者逆德也將者死官也 “Weapons are baleful instruments， strife is antagonistic to virtue， a military commander is the negation of civil order!” The unpalatable fact remains， however， that even Imperial wishes must be subordinated to military necessity. Cf. III. § 17. (5)， X. § 23. The T‘ung Tien has 將在軍 before 君命， etc. This is a gloss on the words by Chu-ko Liang， which being repeated by Tu Yu became incorporated with the text. Chang Yü thinks that these five precepts are the 五利 referred to in § 6. Another theory is that the mysterious 九變 are here enumerated， starting with 圮地無舍 and ending at 地有所不爭， while the final clause 君命有所不受 embraces and as it were sums up all the nine. Thus Ho Shih says: “Even if it be your sovereign’s command to encamp in difficult country， linger in isolated positions， etc.， you must not do so.” The theory is perhaps a little too ingenious to be accepted with confidence.

4. 故將通於九變之利者知用兵矣

The general who thoroughly understands the advantages that accompany variation of tactics knows how to handle his troops.

Before 利 in the original text there is a 地 which is obviously not required.

5. 將欠亨於九變之利者雖知地形不行得地之利矣

The general who does not understand these， may be well acquainted with the configuration of the country， yet he will not be able to turn his knowledge to practical account.

Literally， “get the advantage of the ground，” which means not only securing good positions， but availing oneself of natural advantages in every possible way. Chang Yü says: “Every kind of ground is characterised by certain natural features， and also gives scope for a certain variability of plan. How is it possible to turn these natural features to account unless topographical knowledge is supplemented by versatility of mind?”

6. 治兵不知九變之術雖知五利不行得东谈主之用矣

So， the student of war who is unversed in the art of varying his plans， even though he be acquainted with the Five Advantages， will fail to make the best use of his men.

{75}

Ts‘ao Kung says that the 五利 are 下五事也 “the five things that follow;” but this cannot be right. We must rather look back to the five “variations” contained in § 3. Chia Lin (who reads 五變 here to balance the 五利) tells us that these imply five obvious and generally advantageous lines of action， namely: “if a certain road is short， it must be followed; if an army is isolated， it must be attacked; if a town is in a parlous condition， it must be besieged; if a position can be stormed， it must be attempted; and if consistent with military operations， the ruler’s commands must be obeyed.” But there are circumstances which sometimes forbid a general to use these advantages. For instance， “a certain road may be the shortest way for him， but if he knows that it abounds in natural obstacles， or that the enemy has laid an ambush on it， he will not follow that road. A hostile force may be open to attack， but if he knows that it is hard-pressed and likely to fight with desperation， he will refrain from striking，” and so on. Here the 變 comes in to modify the 利， and hence we see the uselessness of knowing the one without the other—of having an eye for weaknesses in the enemy’s armour without being clever enough to recast one’s plans on the spur of the moment. Capt. Calthrop offers this slovenly translation: “In the management of armies， if the art of the Nine Changes be understood [sic]， a knowledge of the Five Advantages is of no avail.”

7. 是故智者之慮必雜於历害

Hence in the wise leader’s plans， considerations of advantage and of disadvantage will be blended together.

“Whether in an advantageous position or a disadvantageous one，” says Ts‘ao Kung， “the opposite state should be always present to your mind.”

8. 雜於利而務真的也

If our expectation of advantage be tempered in this way， we may succeed in accomplishing the essential part of our schemes.

信， according to Tu Mu， is equivalent to 申， and 務真的也 is paraphrased by Chang Yü as 不错伸己之事. Tu Mu goes on to say: “If we wish to wrest an advantage from the enemy， we must not fix our minds on that alone， but allow for the possibility of the enemy also doing some harm to us， and let this enter as a factor into our calculations.”

9. 雜於害而患可解也

If， on the other hand， in the midst of difficulties we{76} are always ready to seize an advantage， we may extricate ourselves from misfortune.

A translator cannot emulate the conciseness of 雜於害 “to blend [thoughts of advantage] with disadvantage，” but the meaning is as given. Tu Mu says: “If I wish to extricate myself from a dangerous position， I must consider not only the enemy’s ability to injure me， but also my own ability to gain an advantage over the enemy. If in my counsels these two considerations are properly blended， I shall succeed in liberating myself.... For instance， if I am surrounded by the enemy and only think of effecting an escape， the nervelessness of my policy will incite my adversary to pursue and crush me; it would be far better to encourage my men to deliver a bold counter-attack， and use the advantage thus gained to free myself from the enemy’s toils.” See the story of Ts‘ao Ts‘ao， VII. § 35， note. In his first edition， Capt. Calthrop translated §§ 7–9 as follows: “The wise man perceives clearly wherein lies advantage and disadvantage. While recognising an opportunity， he does not overlook the risks， and saves future anxiety.” This has now been altered into: “The wise man considers well both advantage and disadvantage. He sees a way out of adversity， and on the day of victory to danger is not blind.” Owing to a needless inversion of the Chinese， the words which I have italicised are evidently intended to represent § 8!

10. 是故屈諸侯者以害役諸侯者以業趨諸侯者以利

Reduce the hostile chiefs by inflicting damage on them;

Chia Lin enumerates several ways of inflicting this injury， some of which would only occur to the Oriental mind:—“Entice away the enemy’s best and wisest men， so that he may be left without counsellors. Introduce traitors into his country， that the government policy may be rendered futile. Foment intrigue and deceit， and thus sow dissension between the ruler and his ministers. By means of every artful contrivance， cause deterioration amongst his men and waste of his treasure. Corrupt his morals by insidious gifts leading him into excess. Disturb and unsettle his mind by presenting him with lovely women.” Chang Yü (after Wang Hsi) considers the 害 to be military chastisement: “Get the enemy，” he says， “into a position where he must suffer injury， and he will submit of his own accord.” Capt. Calthrop twists Sun Tzŭ’s words into an absurdly barbarous precept: “In reducing an enemy to submission， inflict all possible damage upon him.”

make trouble for them，

業 is defined by Ts‘ao Kung as 事， and his definition is generally{77} adopted by the commentators. Tu Mu， however， seems to take it in the sense of “possessions，” or， as we might say， “assets，” which he considers to be 兵衆國富东谈主和令行 “a large army， a rich exchequer， harmony amongst the soldiers， punctual fulfilment of commands.” These give us a whip-hand over the enemy.

and keep them constantly engaged;

役， literally， “make servants of them.” Tu Yu says 令不得安佚 “prevent them from having any rest.”

hold out specious allurements， and make them rush to any given point.

Mêng Shih’s note contains an excellent example of the idiomatic use of 變: 令忘變而速至 “cause them to forget pien (the reasons for acting otherwise than on their first impulse)， and hasten in our direction.”

11. 故用兵之法無恃其不來恃吾有以待也無恃其不攻恃吾有所不可攻也

The art of war teaches us to rely not on the likelihood of the enemy’s not coming， but on our own readiness to receive him;

The T‘ung Tien and Yü Lan read 有能以待之也， but the conciser form is more likely to be right.

not on the chance of his not attacking， but rather on the fact that we have made our position unassailable.

The T‘ung Tien and Yü Lan insert 吾也 after the first 攻， and omit 有所.

12. 故將有五危必死可殺也必生可虜也忿速可侮也廉潔可辱也愛民可煩也

There are five dangerous faults which may affect a general: (1) Recklessness， which leads to destruction;

勇而無慮 “Bravery without forethought，” as Ts‘ao Kung analyses it， which causes a man to fight blindly and desperately like a mad bull. Such an opponent， says Chang Yü， “must not be encountered with brute force， but may be lured into an ambush and slain.” Cf. Wu Tzŭ， chap. IV ad init.: 凡东谈主論將常觀於勇勇之於將乃數分{78}之一耳夫勇者必輕合輕合而不知利未可也 “In estimating the character of a general， men are wont to pay exclusive attention to his courage， forgetting that courage is only one out of many qualities which a general should possess. The merely brave man is prone to fight recklessly; and he who fights recklessly， without any perception of what is expedient， must be condemned.” The Ssŭ-ma Fa， too， makes the incisive remark 上死不勝 “Simply going to one’s death does not bring about victory.”

(2) cowardice， which leads to capture;

必生 is explained by Ts‘ao Kung of the man “whom timidity prevents from advancing to seize an advantage，” and Wang Hsi adds， “who is quick to flee at the sight of danger.” Mêng Shih gives the closer paraphrase 志必生反 “he who is bent on returning alive，” that is， the man who will never take a risk. But， as Sun Tzŭ knew， nothing is to be achieved in war unless you are willing to take risks. T‘ai Kung said: 失利後時反受其殃 “He who lets an advantage slip will subsequently bring upon himself real disaster.” In 404 A.D.， 劉裕 Liu Yü pursued the rebel 桓𤣥 Huan Hsüan up the Yangtsze and fought a naval battle with him at 崢嶸洲 the island of Ch‘êng-hung. The loyal troops numbered only a few thousands， while their opponents were in great force. But Huan Hsüan， fearing the fate which was in store for him should he be overcome， had a light boat made fast to the side of his war-junk， so that he might escape， if necessary， at a moment’s notice. The natural result was that the fighting spirit of his soldiers was utterly quenched， and when the loyalists made an attack from windward with fireships， all striving with the utmost ardour to be first in the fray， Huan Hsüan’s forces were routed， had to burn all their baggage and fled for two days and nights without stopping. [See 晉書， chap. 99， fol. 13.] Chang Yü tells a somewhat similar story of 趙嬰齊 Chao Ying-ch‘i， a general of the Chin State who during a battle with the army of Ch‘u in 597 B.C. had a boat kept in readiness for him on the river， wishing in case of defeat to be the first to get across.

(3) a hasty temper， which can be provoked by insults;

I fail to see the meaning of Capt. Calthrop’s “which brings insult.” Tu Mu tells us that 姚襄 Yao Hsiang， when opposed in 357 A.D. by 黃眉 Huang Mei， 鄧羌 Têng Ch‘iang and others， shut himself up behind his walls and refused to fight. Têng Ch‘iang said: “Our adversary is of a choleric temper and easily provoked; let us make constant sallies and break down his walls， then he will grow angry and come out.{79} Once we can bring his force to battle， it is doomed to be our prey.” This plan was acted upon， Yao Hsiang came out to fight， was lured on as far as 三原 San-yuan by the enemy’s pretended flight， and finally attacked and slain.

(4) a delicacy of honour which is sensitive to shame;

This need not be taken to mean that a sense of honour is really a defect in a general. What Sun Tzŭ condemns is rather an exaggerated sensitiveness to slanderous reports， the thin-skinned man who is stung by opprobrium， however undeserved. Mei Yao-ch‘ên truly observes， though somewhat paradoxically: 徇名不顧 “The seeker after glory should be careless of public opinion.”

(5) over-solicitude for his men， which exposes him to worry and trouble.

Here again， Sun Tzŭ does not mean that the general is to be careless of the welfare of his troops. All he wishes to emphasise is the danger of sacrificing any important military advantage to the immediate comfort of his men. This is a shortsighted policy， because in the long run the troops will suffer more from the defeat， or， at best， the prolongation of the war， which will be the consequence. A mistaken feeling of pity will often induce a general to relieve a beleaguered city， or to reinforce a hard-pressed detachment， contrary to his military instincts. It is now generally admitted that our repeated efforts to relieve Ladysmith in the South African War were so many strategical blunders which defeated their own purpose. And in the end， relief came through the very man who started out with the distinct resolve no longer to subordinate the interests of the whole to sentiment in favour of a part. An old soldier of one of our generals who failed most conspicuously in this war， tried once， I remember， to defend him to me on the ground that he was always “so good to his men.” By this plea， had he but known it， he was only condemning him out of Sun Tzŭ’s mouth.

13. 凡此五者將之過也用兵之災也

These are the five besetting sins of a general， ruinous to the conduct of war.

14. 覆軍殺將必以五危不可不察也

When an army is overthrown and its leader slain， the cause will surely be found among these five dangerous faults. Let them be a subject of meditation.

The contents of this interesting chapter are better indicated in § 1 than by this heading.

1. 孫子曰凡處軍相敵絶山依谷

Sun Tzŭ said: We come now to the question of encamping the army， and observing signs of the enemy.

The discussion of 處軍， as Chang Yü points out， extends from here down to 伏姦之所藏處也 (§§ 1–17)， and 相敵 from that point down to 必謹察之 (§§ 18–39). The rest of the chapter consists of a few desultory remarks， chiefly on the subject of discipline.

Pass quickly over mountains，

For this use of 絶， cf. infra. § 3. See also 荀子， ch. 1. fol. 2 (standard edition of 1876): 絶江河; Shih Chi， ch. 27 ad init.: 後六星絶漢.

and keep in the neighbourhood of valleys.

Tu Mu says that 依 here = 近. The idea is， not to linger among barren uplands， but to keep close to supplies of water and grass. Capt. Calthrop translates “camp in valleys，” heedless of the very next sentence. Cf. Wu Tzŭ， ch. 3: 無當天竈 “Abide not in natural ovens，” i.e. 大谷之口 “the openings of large valleys.” Chang Yü tells the following anecdote: “武都羗 Wu-tu Ch‘iang was a robber captain in the time of the Later Han， and 馬援 Ma Yüan was sent to exterminate his gang. Ch‘iang having found a refuge in the hills， Ma Yüan made no attempt to force a battle， but seized all the favourable positions commanding supplies of water and forage. Ch‘iang was soon in such a desperate plight for want of provisions that he was forced to make a total surrender. He did not know the advantage of keeping in the neighbourhood of valleys.”

{81}

2. 視生處高戰隆無登此處山之軍也

Camp in high places，

Not on high hills， but on knolls or hillocks elevated above the surrounding country.

facing the sun.

視生 = 面陽. Tu Mu takes this to mean “facing south，” and Ch‘ên Hao “facing east.” Cf. infra， §§ 11， 13.

Do not climb heights in order to fight.

隆 is here simply equivalent to 高. The T‘ung Tien and Yü Lan read 降.

So much for mountain warfare.

After 山， the T‘ung Tien and Yü Lan insert 谷.

3. 絶水必遠水

After crossing a river， you should get far away from it.

“In order to tempt the enemy to cross after you，” according to Ts‘ao Kung， and also， says Chang Yü， “in order not to be impeded in your evolutions.” The T‘ung Tien reads 敵若絶水 “If the enemy crosses a river，” etc. But in view of the next sentence， this is almost certainly an interpolation.

4. 客絶水而來勿迎之於水內令半濟而擊之利

When an invading force crosses a river in its onward march， do not advance to meet it in mid-stream. It will be best to let half the army get across， and then deliver your attack.

The T‘ung Tien and Yü Lan read 度 for 濟， without change of meaning. Wu Tzŭ plagiarises this passage twice over:—ch. II ad fin.， 涉水半渡可擊; ch. V， 敵若絶水半渡而擊. Li Ch‘üan alludes to the great victory won by Han Hsin over 龍且 Lung Chü at the 濰 Wei River. Turning to the Ch‘ien Han Shu， ch. 34， fol. 6 verso， we find the battle described as follows: “The two armies were drawn up on opposite sides of the river. In the night， Han Hsin ordered his men to take some ten thousand sacks filled with sand and construct a dam a little higher up. Then， leading half his army across， he attacked{82} Lung Chü; but after a time， pretending to have failed in his attempt， he hastily withdrew to the other bank. Lung Chü was much elated by this unlooked-for success， and exclaiming: “I felt sure that Han Hsin was really a coward!” he pursued him and began crossing the river in his turn. Han Hsin now sent a party to cut open the sandbags， thus releasing a great volume of water， which swept down and prevented the greater portion of Lung Chü’s army from getting across. He then turned upon the force which had been cut off， and annihilated it， Lung Chü himself being amongst the slain. The rest of the army， on the further bank， also scattered and fled in all directions.”

5. 欲戰者無附於水而迎客

If you are anxious to fight， you should not go to meet the invader near a river which he has to cross.

For fear of preventing his crossing. Capt. Calthrop makes the injunction ridiculous by omitting 欲戰者.

6. 視生處高無迎水流此處水上之軍也

Moor your craft higher up than the enemy， and facing the sun.

See supra， § 2. The repetition of these words in connection with water is very awkward. Chang Yü has the note: 或岸邊爲陳或水上泊舟齐須面陽而居高 “Said either of troops marshalled on the river-bank， or of boats anchored in the stream itself; in either case it is essential to be higher than the enemy and facing the sun.” The other commentators are not at all explicit. One is much tempted to reject their explanation of 視生 altogether， and understand it simply as “seeking safety.” [Cf. 必生 in VIII. § 12， and infra， § 9.] It is true that this involves taking 視 in an unusual， though not， I think， an impossible sense. Of course the earlier passage would then have to be translated in like manner.

Do not move up-stream to meet the enemy.

Tu Mu says: “As water flows downwards， we must not pitch our camp on the lower reaches of a river， for fear the enemy should open the sluices and sweep us away in a flood. This is implied above in the words 視生處高. Chu-ko Wu-hou has remarked that ‘in river warfare we must not advance against the stream，’ which is as much as to say that our fleet must not be anchored below that of the enemy， for then they would be able to take advantage of the current and make short work of us.” There is also the danger， noted by other commentators，{83} that the enemy may throw poison on the water to be carried down to us. Capt. Calthrop’s first version was: “Do not cross rivers in the face of the stream”—a sapient piece of advice， which made one curious to know what the correct way of crossing rivers might be. He has now improved this into: “Do not fight when the enemy is between the army and the source of the river.”

So much for river warfare.

7. 絶斥澤惟亟去無留

In crossing salt-marshes， your sole concern should be to get over them quickly， without any delay.

Because of the lack of fresh water， the poor quality of the herbage， and last but not least， because they are low， flat， and exposed to attack.

8. 若交軍於斥澤之中必依水草而背衆樹此處斥澤之軍也

If forced to fight in a salt-marsh， you should have water and grass near you， and get your back to a clump of trees.

Li Ch‘üan remarks that the ground is less likely to be treacherous where there are trees， while Tu Yu says that they will serve to protect the rear. Capt. Calthrop， with a perfect genius for going wrong， says “in the neighbourhood of a marsh.” For 若 the T‘ung Tien and Yü Lan wrongly read 爲， and the latter also has 倍 instead of 背.

So much for operations in salt-marshes.

9. 平陸處易而右背高前死後生此處平陸之軍也

In dry， level country， take up an easily accessible position

This is doubtless the force of 易， its opposite being 險. Thus， Tu Mu explains it as 坦易平穩之處 “ground that is smooth and firm，” and therefore adapted for cavalry; Chang Yü as 坦易無坎陷之處 “level ground， free from depressions and hollows.” He adds later on that although Sun Tzŭ is discussing flat country， there will nevertheless be slight elevations and hillocks.

with rising ground to your right and on your rear，

{84}

The Yü Lan again reads 倍 for 背. Tu Mu quotes T‘ai Kung as saying: “An army should have a stream or a marsh on its left， and a hill or tumulus on its right.”

so that the danger may be in front， and safety lie behind.

Wang Hsi thinks that 後生 contradicts the saying 視生 in § 2， and therefore suspects a mistake in the text.

So much for campaigning in flat country.

10. 凡此四軍之利黃帝之是以勝四帝也

These are the four useful branches of military knowledge

Those， namely， concerned with (1) mountains， (2) rivers， (3) marshes， and (4) plains. Compare Napoleon’s “Military Maxims，” no. 1.

which enabled the Yellow Emperor to vanquish four several sovereigns.

Mei Yao-ch‘ên asks， with some plausibility， whether 帝 is not a mistake for 軍 “armies，” as nothing is known of Huang Ti having conquered four other Emperors. The Shih Chi (ch. I ad init.) speaks only of his victories over 炎帝 Yen Ti and 蚩尤 Ch‘ih Yu. In the 六韜 it is mentioned that he “fought seventy battles and pacified the Empire.” Ts‘ao Kung’s explanation is， that the Yellow Emperor was the first to institute the feudal system of vassal princes， each of whom (to the number of four) originally bore the title of Emperor. Li Ch‘üan tells us that the art of war originated under Huang Ti， who received it from his Minister 風后 Fêng Hou.

11. 凡軍喜高而惡下貴陽而賤陰

All armies prefer high ground to low，

“High ground，” says Mei Yao-ch‘ên， “is not only more agreeable and salubrious， but more convenient from a military point of view; low ground is not only damp and unhealthy， but also disadvantageous for fighting.” The original text and the T‘u Shu have 好 instead of 喜.

and sunny places to dark.

12. 養生而處實軍無百疾是謂必勝

If you are careful of your men，

Ts‘ao Kung says: 向水草可放牧養畜 “Make for fresh water and pasture， where you can turn out your animals to graze.” And{85} the other commentators follow him， apparently taking 生 as = 牲. Cf. Mencius， V. 1. ix. 1， where 養牲者 means a cattle-keeper. But here 養生 surely has reference to the health of the troops. It is the title of Chuang Tzŭ’s third chapter， where it denotes moral rather than physical well-being.

and camp on hard ground，

實 must mean dry and solid， as opposed to damp and marshy， ground. This is to be found as a rule in high places， so the commentators explain 實 as practically equivalent to 高.

the army will be free from disease of every kind，

Chang Yü says: “The dryness of the climate will prevent the outbreak of illness.”

and this will spell victory.

13. 邱陵隄防必處其陽而右背之此兵之利地之助也

When you come to a hill or a bank， occupy the sunny side， with the slope on your right rear. Thus you will at once act for the benefit of your soldiers and utilise the natural advantages of the ground.

14. 上雨水沫至欲涉者待其定也

When， in consequence of heavy rains up-country， a river which you wish to ford is swollen and flecked with foam， you must wait until it subsides.

The T‘ung Tien and Yü Lan have a superfluous 下 before 水.

15. 凡地有絶澗天井天牢天羅天陷天隙必亟去之勿近也

Country in which there are precipitous cliffs with torrents running between，

絶澗， explained by Mei Yao-ch‘ên as 前後險峻水橫其中.

deep natural hollows，

天井， explained as 四面峻坂澗壑所歸 “places enclosed on every side by steep banks， with pools of water at the bottom.”

confined places，

{86}

天牢 “natural pens or prisons，” explained as 三面環絶易入難出 “places surrounded by precipices on three sides—easy to get into， but hard to get out of.”

tangled thickets，

天羅， explained as 草木蒙密鋒鏑莫施 “places covered with such dense undergrowth that spears cannot be used.”

quagmires

天陷， explained as 卑下汙𣾈車騎欠亨 “low-lying places， so heavy with mud as to be impassible for chariots and horsemen.”

and crevasses，

天隙 is explained by Mei Yao-ch‘ên as 兩山相向洞谈狹惡 “a narrow difficult way between beetling cliffs，” but Ts‘ao Kung says 山澗迫狹地形深數尺長數丈者， which seems to denote something on a much smaller scale. Tu Mu’s note is 地多溝坑坎陷木石 “ground covered with trees and rocks， and intersected by numerous ravines and pitfalls.” This is very vague， but Chia Lin explains it clearly enough as a defile or narrow pass: 兩邊險絶形狹長而數里， and Chang Yü takes much the same view. On the whole， the weight of the commentators certainly inclines to the rendering “defile”. But the ordinary meaning of 隙 (a crack or fissure) and the fact that 絶澗 above must be something in the nature of a defile， make me think that Sun Tzŭ is here speaking of crevasses. The T‘ung Tien and Yü Lan read 郄 for 隙， with the same meaning; the latter also has 大害 after 天郄—a palpable gloss.

should be left with all possible speed and not approached.

16. 吾遠之敵近之吾迎之敵背之

While we keep away from such places， we should get the enemy to approach them; while we face them， we should let the enemy have them on his rear.

17. 軍旁有險阻蔣潢井生葭葦小林蘙薈必謹覆索之此伏姦之所藏處也

If in the neighbourhood of your camp

The original text has 軍行， but 旁 has been generally adopted as yielding much better sense.

{87}

there should be any hilly country，

險阻 is 邱阜之地， according to Chang Yü.

ponds surrounded by aquatic grass， hollow basins filled with reeds，

The original text omits 蔣 and 生， so that 潢 and 井 join to make a pair: “ponds and basins.” This is plausible enough at first sight， but there are several objections to the reading: (1) 蔣 is unlikely to have got into the text as a gloss on 潢; (2) it is easy to suppose， on the other hand， that 蔣 and afterwards 生 (to restore the balance of the sentence) were omitted by a copyist who jumped to the conclusion that 潢 and 井 must go together; (3) the sense， when one comes to consider it， actually requires 蔣， for it is absurd to talk of pools and ponds as in themselves suitable places for an ambush; (4) Li Ching (571–649 A. D.) in his 兵法 “Art of War” has the words: 蔣潢蘙薈則必索其伏. This is evidently a reminiscence of Sun Tzŭ， so there can be little doubt that 蔣 stood in the text at this early date. It may be added that the T‘ung Tien and Yü Lan both have 蔣， and the latter also reads 并 for 井.

or woods with thick undergrowth，

I read 小林 with the Yü Lan in preference to 山林， given in the original text， which is accepted by the commentators without question. The text of the T‘u Shu up to this point runs as follows: 潢井蒹葭林木蘙薈者.

they must be carefully routed out and searched; for these are places where men in ambush or insidious spies are likely to be lurking.

The original text omits 藏， which has been restored from the T‘ung Tien and Yü Lan. The T‘u Shu omits 處 as well， making 所 a substantive. On 姦 Chang Yü has the note: 又慮姦細潛隱覘我虛實聽我號令伏姦當爲兩事 “We must also be on our guard against traitors who may lie in close covert， secretly spying out our weaknesses and overhearing our instructions. Fu and chien are to be taken separately.”

18. 敵近而靜者恃其險也

When the enemy is close at hand and remains quiet， he is relying on the natural strength of his position.

{88}

Here begin Sun Tzŭ’s remarks on the reading of signs， much of which is so good that it could almost be included in a modern manual like Gen. Baden-Powell’s “Aids to Scouting.”

19. 遠而挑戰者欲东谈主之進也

When he keeps aloof and tries to provoke a battle， he is anxious for the other side to advance.

Probably because we are in a strong position from which he wishes to dislodge us. “If he came close up to us，” says Tu Mu， “and tried to force a battle， he would seem to despise us， and there would be less probability of our responding to the challenge.”

20. 其所居者易利也

If his place of encampment is easy of access， he is tendering a bait.

易 is here the opposite of 險 in § 18. The reading of the T‘ung Tien and Yü Lan， 其所處者居易利也， is pretty obviously corrupt. The original text， which transposes 易 and 者， may very possibly be right. Tu Mu tells us that there is yet another reading: 士爭其所居者易利也.

21. 衆樹動者來也衆草多障者疑也

Movement amongst the trees of a forest shows that the enemy is advancing.

Ts‘ao Kung explains this as “felling trees to clear a passage，” and Chang Yü says: “Every army sends out scouts to climb high places and observe the enemy. If a scout sees that the trees of a forest are moving and shaking， he may know that they are being cut down to clear a passage for the enemy’s march.”

The appearance of a number of screens in the midst of thick grass means that the enemy wants to make us suspicious.

Whenever the meaning of a passage happens to be somewhat elusive， Capt. Calthrop seems to consider himself justified in giving free rein to the imagination. Thus， though his text is here identical with ours， he renders the above: “Broken branches and trodden grass， as of the passing of a large host， must be regarded with suspicion.” Tu Yu’s explanation， borrowed from Ts‘ao Kung， is as follows: “The presence of a number of screens or sheds in the midst of thick vegetation is a sure sign that the enemy has fled and， fearing pursuit， has constructed these hiding-places{89} in order to make us suspect an ambush.” It appears that these “screens” were hastily knotted together out of any long grass which the retreating enemy happened to come across.

22. 鳥起者伏也獸駭者覆也

The rising of birds in their flight is the sign of an ambuscade.

Chang Yü’s explanation is doubtless right: “When birds that are flying along in a straight line suddenly shoot upwards， it means that soldiers are in ambush at the spot beneath.”

Startled beasts indicate that a sudden attack is coming.

An example of 覆 fou4 in the meaning of “ambuscade” may be found in the Tso Chuan， 隱 9th year: 君爲三覆以待之. In the present passage， however， it is to be distinguished from 伏 just above， in that it implies onward motion on the part of the attacking force. Thus， Li Ch‘üan defines it as 不意而至， and Tu Mu as 來襲我也.

23. 塵高而銳者車來也卑而廣者徒來也散而條達者樵採也少而往來者營軍也

When there is dust rising in a high column， it is the sign of chariots advancing; when the dust is low， but spread over a wide area， it betokens the approach of infantry.

高而銳 “high and sharp，” or rising to a peak， is of course somewhat exaggerated as applied to dust. The commentators explain the phenomenon by saying that horses and chariots， being heavier than men， raise more dust， and also follow one another in the same wheel-track， whereas foot-soldiers would be marching in ranks， many abreast. According to Chang Yü， “every army on the march must have scouts (探候之东谈主) some way in advance， who on sighting dust raised by the enemy， will gallop back and report it to the commander-in-chief.” Cf. Gen. Baden-Powell: “As you move along， say， in a hostile country， your eyes should be looking afar for the enemy or any signs of him: figures， dust rising， birds getting up， glitter of arms， etc.”[174]

When it branches out in different directions， it shows that parties have been sent to collect firewood.

There is some doubt about the reading 樵採. The T‘ung Tien and Yü Lan have 薪採， and Li Ch‘üan proposes 薪來.

{90}

A few clouds of dust moving to and fro signify that the army is encamping.

Chang Yü says: “In apportioning the defences for a cantonment， light horse will be sent out to survey the position and ascertain the weak and strong points all along its circumference. Hence the small quantity of dust and its motion.”

24. 辭卑而益備者進也辭强而進驅者退也

Humble words and increased preparations are signs that the enemy is about to advance.

“As though they stood in great fear of us，” says Tu Mu. “Their object is to make us contemptuous and careless， after which they will attack us.” Chang Yü alludes to the story of 田單 T‘ien Tan of the Ch‘i State， who in 279 B.C. was hard-pressed in his defence of 卽墨 Chi-mo against the Yen forces， led by 騎劫 Ch‘i Chieh. In ch. 82 of the Shih Chi we read: “T‘ien Tan openly said: ‘My only fear is that the Yen army may cut off the noses of their Ch‘i prisoners and place them in the front rank to fight against us; that would be the undoing of our city.’ The other side being informed of this speech， at once acted on the suggestion; but those within the city were enraged at seeing their fellow-countrymen thus mutilated， and fearing only lest they should fall into the enemy’s hands， were nerved to defend themselves more obstinately than ever. Once again T‘ien Tan sent back converted spies who reported these words to the enemy: ‘What I dread most is that the men of Yen may dig up the ancestral tombs outside the town， and by inflicting this indignity on our forefathers cause us to become faint-hearted.’ Forthwith the besiegers dug up all the graves and burned the corpses lying in them. And the inhabitants of Chi-mo， witnessing the outrage from the city-walls， wept passionately and were all impatient to go out and fight， their fury being increased tenfold. T‘ien Tan knew then that his soldiers were ready for any enterprise. But instead of a sword， he himself took a mattock in his hands， and ordered others to be distributed amongst his best warriors， while the ranks were filled up with their wives and concubines. He then served out all the remaining rations and bade his men eat their fill. The regular soldiers were told to keep out of sight， and the walls were manned with the old and weaker men and with women. This done， envoys were despatched to the enemy’s camp to arrange terms of surrender， whereupon the Yen army began shouting for joy. T‘ien Tan also collected 20，000 ounces of silver from the people， and got the wealthy citizens of Chi-mo to send it to the Yen general with the prayer that， when the town capitulated， he would not allow their homes to be plundered or their women to be maltreated. Ch‘i Chieh， in high good humour， granted their prayer; but his army now became increasingly slack and{91} careless. Meanwhile， T‘ien Tan got together a thousand oxen， decked them with pieces of red silk， painted their bodies， dragon-like， with coloured stripes， and fastened sharp blades on their horns and well-greased rushes on their tails. When night came on， he lighted the ends of the rushes， and drove the oxen through a number of holes which he had pierced in the walls， backing them up with a force of 5000 picked warriors. The animals， maddened with pain， dashed furiously into the enemy’s camp where they caused the utmost confusion and dismay; for their tails acted as torches， showing up the hideous pattern on their bodies， and the weapons on their horns killed or wounded any with whom they came into contact. In the meantime， the band of 5000 had crept up with gags in their mouths， and now threw themselves on the enemy. At the same moment a frightful din arose in the city itself， all those that remained behind making as much noise as possible by banging drums and hammering on bronze vessels， until heaven and earth were convulsed by the uproar. Terror-stricken， the Yen army fled in disorder， hotly pursued by the men of Ch‘i， who succeeded in slaying their general Ch‘i Chieh.... The result of the battle was the ultimate recovery of some seventy cities which had belonged to the Ch‘i State.”

Violent language and driving forward as if to the attack are signs that he will retreat.

I follow the original text here， also adopted by the T‘u Shu. The standard text reads 辭詭而强進驅者退也 on the strength of Ts‘ao Kung’s commentary 詭詐也， which shows that his text included the word 詭. Strong as this ground is， I do not think it can counterbalance the obvious superiority of the other reading in point of sense. 詭 not only provides no antithesis to 卑， but makes the whole passage absurd; for if the language of the enemy is calculated to deceive， it cannot be known as deceitful at the time， and can therefore afford no “sign.” Moreover， the extra word in 强進驅者 (an awkward locution， by the way) spoils the parallelism with 益備者.

25. 輕車先出居其側者陳也

When the light chariots

The same， according to Tu Yu， as the 馳車 of II. § 1.

come out first and take up a position on the wings， it is a sign that the enemy is forming for battle.

The T‘ung Tien omits 出.

26. 無約而請和者謀也

Peace proposals unaccompanied by a sworn covenant indicate a plot.

{92}

Tu Yu defines 約 as 要約， and Li Ch‘üan as 質盟之約 “a treaty confirmed by oaths and hostages.” Wang Hsi and Chang Yü， on the other hand， simply say 無故 “without reason，” “on a frivolous pretext，” as though 約 bore the rather unusual sense of “important.” Capt. Calthrop has “without consultation，” which is too loose.

27. 奔跑而陳兵者期也

When there is much running about

Every man hastening to his proper place under his own regimental banner.

and the soldiers fall into rank，

I follow the T‘u Shu in omitting 車 after 兵. Tu Mu quotes the Chou Li， ch. xxix. fol. 31: 車驟徒趨及表乃止.

it means that the critical moment has come.

What Chia Lin calls 晷刻之期， as opposed to 尋常之期.

28. 半進半退者誘也

When some are seen advancing and some retreating， it is a lure.

Capt. Calthrop is hardly right in translating: “An advance， followed by sudden retirement.” It is rather a case of feigned confusion. As Tu Mu says: 僞爲雜亂不整之狀.

29. 倚恃而立者飢也

When the soldiers stand leaning on their spears， they are faint from want of food.

仗 is here probably not a synonym for 倚， but = 兵 “a weapon.” The original text has 杖而立者， which has been corrected from the T‘ung Tien and Yü Lan.

30. 汲而先飮者渴也

If those who are sent to draw water begin by drinking themselves， the army is suffering from thirst.

As Tu Mu remarks: 覩一东谈主三軍可知也 “One may know the condition of a whole army from the behaviour of a single man.” The 先 may mean either that they drink before drawing water for the army， or before they return to camp. Chang Yü takes the latter view. The T‘ung Tien has the faulty reading 汲役先飮者， and the Yü Lan， worse still， 汲設飮者.

{93}

31. 見利而不進者勞也

If the enemy sees an advantage to be gained

Not necessarily “booty，” as Capt. Calthrop translates it. The T‘ung Tien and Yü Lan read 向东谈主見利， etc.

and makes no effort to secure it， the soldiers are exhausted.

32. 鳥集者虛也夜呼者恐也

If birds gather on any spot， it is unoccupied.

A useful fact to bear in mind when， for instance， as Ch‘ên Hao says， the enemy has secretly abandoned his camp.

Clamour by night betokens nervousness.

Owing to false alarms; or， as Tu Mu explains it: 恐懼不安故夜呼以自壯也 “Fear makes men restless; so they fall to shouting at night in order to keep up their courage.” The T‘ung Tien inserts 喧 before 呼.

33. 軍擾者將不重也旗号動者亂也吏怒者倦也

If there is disturbance in the camp， the general’s authority is weak. If the banners and flags are shifted about， sedition is afoot.

The T‘ung Tien and Yü Lan omit 旌.

If the officers are angry， it means that the men are weary.

And therefore， as Capt. Calthrop says， slow to obey. Tu Yu understands the sentence differently: “If all the officers of an army are angry with their general， it means that they are broken with fatigue” [owing to the exertions which he has demanded from them].

34. 粟馬肉食軍無懸缻不返其舍者窮宼也

When an army feeds its horses with grain and kills its cattle for food，

粟馬肉食 is expanded by Mei Yao-ch‘ên (following Tu Mu) into 給糧以𥞊乎馬殺畜以饗乎士， which is the sense I have given above. In the ordinary course of things， the men would be fed on grain and the horses chiefly on grass.

and when the men do not hang their cooking-pots

{94}

The T‘ung Tien reads 缶， which is much the same as 缻， and the Yü Lan 箠， which is manifestly wrong.

over the camp-fires， showing that they will not return to their tents，

For 返， the T‘ung Tien and Yü Lan both read 及.

you may know that they are determined to fight to the death.

For 窮宼， see VII. § 36. I may quote here the illustrative passage from the Hou Han Shu， ch. 71， given in abbreviated form by the P‘ei Wên Yün Fu: “The rebel 王國 Wang Kuo of 梁 Liang was besieging the town of 陳倉 Ch‘ên-ts‘ang， and 皇甫嵩 Huang-fu Sung， who was in supreme command， and 董卓 Tung Cho were sent out against him. The latter pressed for hasty measures， but Sung turned a deaf ear to his counsel. At last the rebels were utterly worn out， and began to throw down their weapons of their own accord. Sung was now for advancing to the attack， but Cho said: ‘It is a principle of war not to pursue desperate men and not to press a retreating host.’ Sung answered: ‘That does not apply here. What I am about to attack is a jaded army， not a retreating host; with disciplined troops I am falling on a disorganised multitude， not a band of desperate men.’ Thereupon he advanced to the attack unsupported by his colleague， and routed the enemy， Wang Kuo being slain.” The inferior reading of the T‘u Shu for § 34 is as follows: 殺馬肉食者軍無糧也懸缻不返其舍者窮宼也. The first clause strikes me as rather shallow for Sun Tzŭ， and it is hard to make anything of 懸缻 in the second without the negative. Capt. Calthrop， nothing daunted， set down in his first edition: “When they cast away their cooking-pots.” He now has: “When the cooking-pots are hung up on the wall.”

35. 諄諄翕翕徐言入入者失衆也

The sight of men whispering together

諄諄 is well explained by Tu Mu as 乏氣聲促 “speaking with bated breath.”

in small knots

The Shuo Wên rather strangely defines 翕 by the word 起， but the Êrh Ya says 合 “to join” or “contract，” which is undoubtedly its primary meaning. Chang Yü is right， then， in explaining it here by the word 聚. The other commentators are very much at sea: Ts‘ao Kung says 失志貌， Tu Yu 不眞， Tu Mu 顚倒失次貌， Chia Lin 不安貌， Mei Yao-ch‘ên 曠職事， Wang Hsi 患其上.

{95}

or speaking in subdued tones

入入 is said to be the same as 如如.

points to disaffection amongst the rank and file.

失衆 is equivalent to 失其衆心， the subject of course being “the general，” understood. In the original text， which seems to be followed by several commentators， the whole passage stands thus: 諄諄翕翕徐與东谈主言者失衆也. Here it would be the general who is talking to his men， not the men amongst themselves. For 翕， which is the chief stumbling-block in the way of this reading， the T‘u Shu gives the very plausible emendation 𧬈 (also read hsi， and defined by K‘ang Hsi as 疾言 “to speak fast”). But this is unnecessary if we keep to the standard text.

36. 屢賞者窘也數罰者困也

Too frequent rewards signify that the enemy is at the end of his resources;

Because， when an army is hard pressed， as Tu Mu says， there is always a fear of mutiny， and lavish rewards are given to keep the men in good temper.

too many punishments betray a condition of dire distress.

Because in such case discipline becomes relaxed， and unwonted severity is necessary to keep the men to their duty.

37. 先暴而後畏其衆者不精之至也

To begin by bluster， but afterwards to take fright at the enemy’s numbers， shows a supreme lack of intelligence.

I follow the interpretation of Ts‘ao Kung: 先輕敵後聞其衆則心惡之也， also adopted by Li Ch‘üan， Tu Mu and Chang Yü. Another possible meaning， set forth by Tu Yu， Chia Lin， Mei Yao-ch‘ên and Wang Hsi， is: “The general who is first tyrannical towards his men， and then in terror lest they should mutiny， etc.” This would connect the sentence with what went before about rewards and punishments. The T‘ung Tien and Yü Lan read 情 “affection” instead of 精.

38. 來委謝者欲休息也

When envoys are sent with compliments in their mouths， it is a sign that the enemy wishes for a truce.

{96}

Tu Mu says: 是以委質來謝此乃勢已窮或有他故必欲休息也 “If the enemy open friendly relations by sending hostages， it is a sign that they are anxious for an armistice， either because their strength is exhausted or for some other reason.” But it hardly needs a Sun Tzŭ to draw such an obvious inference; and although Tu Mu is supported by Mei Yao-ch‘ên and Chang Yü， I cannot think that hostages are indicated by the word 委.

39. 兵怒而相迎久而不对又不相去必謹察之

If the enemy’s troops march up angrily and remain facing ours for a long time without either joining battle or taking themselves off again， the situation is one that demands great vigilance and circumspection.

Capt. Calthrop falls into a trap which often lurks in the word 相. He translates: “When both sides， eager for a fight， face each other for a considerable time， neither advancing nor retiring，” etc. Had he reflected a little， he would have seen that this is meaningless as addressed to a commander who has control over the movements of his own troops. 相迎， then， does not mean that the two armies go to meet each other， but simply that the other side comes up to us. Likewise with 相去. If this were not perfectly clear of itself， Mei Yao-ch‘ên’s paraphrase would make it so: 怒而來逆我， etc. As Ts‘ao Kung points out， a manœuvre of this sort may be only a ruse to gain time for an unexpected flank attack or the laying of an ambush.

40. 兵非益多也惟無武進足以倂力料敵取东谈主费力

If our troops are no more in number than the enemy， that is amply sufficient;

Wang Hsi’s paraphrase， partly borrowed from Ts‘ao Kung， is 權力均足矣. Another reading， adopted by Chia Lin and the T‘u Shu， is 兵非貴益多， which Capt. Calthrop renders， much too loosely: “Numbers are no certain mark of strength.”

it only means that no direct attack can be made.

Literally， “no martial advance.” That is to say， 正 “chêng” tactics and frontal attacks must be eschewed， and stratagem resorted to instead.

What we can do is simply to concentrate all our available strength， keep a close watch on the enemy， and obtain reinforcements.

{97}

This is an obscure sentence， and none of the commentators succeed in squeezing very good sense out of it. The difficulty lies chiefly in the words 取东谈主， which have been taken in every possible way. I follow Li Ch‘üan， who appears to offer the simplest explanation: 惟得东谈主者勝也 “Only the side that gets more men will win.” Ts‘ao Kung’s note， concise as usual to the verge of incomprehensibility， is 厮養足也. Fortunately we have Chang Yü to expound its meaning to us in language which is lucidity itself: 军力既均又未見便雖未足剛進足以取东谈主於厮養之中以并兵协力察敵而取勝不必假他兵以助己 “When the numbers are even， and no favourable opening presents itself， although we may not be strong enough to deliver a sustained attack， we can find additional recruits amongst our sutlers and camp-followers， and then， concentrating our forces and keeping a close watch on the enemy， contrive to snatch the victory. But we must avoid borrowing foreign soldiers to help us.” He then quotes from Wei Liao Tzŭ， ch. 3: 助卒名爲十萬其實不過數萬耳 “The nominal strength of mercenary troops may be 100，000， but their real value will be not more than half that figure.” According to this interpretation， 取东谈主 means “to get recruits，” not from outside， but from the tag-rag and bobtail which follows in the wake of a large army. This does not sound a very soldierly suggestion， and I feel convinced that it is not what Sun Tzŭ meant. Chia Lin， on the other hand， takes the words in a different sense altogether， namely “to conquer the enemy” [cf. I. § 20]. But in that case they could hardly be followed by 费力. Better than this would be the rendering “to make isolated captures，” as opposed to 武進 “a general attack.”

41. 夫惟無慮而易敵者必擒於东谈主

He who exercises no forethought but makes light of his opponents is sure to be captured by them.

The force of 夫惟 is not easy to appreciate. Ch‘én Hao says 殊無遠慮但輕敵者， thus referring 惟 to the second verb. He continues， quoting from the Tso Chuan: 蜂蠆有毒况且國乎則小敵亦不可輕 “If bees and scorpions carry poison， how much more will a hostile state! [僖公， XXII. 3.] Even a puny opponent， then， should not be treated with contempt.”

42. 卒未親附而罰之則不屈不屈則難用也卒已親附而罰不行則不可用也

If soldiers are punished before they have grown{98} attached to you， they will not prove submissive; and， unless submissive， they will be practically useless. If， when the soldiers have become attached to you， punishments are not enforced， they will still be useless.

This is wrongly translated by Capt. Calthrop: “If the troops know the general， but are not affected by his punishments， they are useless.”

43. 故令之以文齊之以武是謂必取

Therefore soldiers must be treated in the first instance with humanity， but kept under control by means of iron discipline.

文 and 武， according to Ts‘ao Kung， are here equivalent to 仁 and 法 respectively. Compare our two uses of the word “civil.” 晏子 Yen Tzŭ [✝ B.C. 493] said of 司馬穰苴 Ssŭ-ma Jang-chü: 文能附衆武能威敵也 “His civil virtues endeared him to the people; his martial prowess kept his enemies in awe.” Cf. Wu Tzŭ， ch. 4 init.: 夫總文武者軍之將也兼剛柔者兵之事也 “The ideal commander unites culture with a warlike temper; the profession of arms requires a combination of hardness and tenderness.” Again I must find fault with Capt. Calthrop’s translation: “By humane treatment we obtain obedience; authority brings uniformity.”

This is a certain road to victory.

44. 令素行以教其民則民服令不素行以教其民則民不屈

If in training soldiers commands are habitually enforced， the army will be well-disciplined; if not， its discipline will be bad.

The T‘ung Tien and Yü Lan read: 令素行以教其东谈主者也令素行則东谈主服令素不行則东谈主不屈.

45. 令素信著者與衆相得也

If a general shows confidence in his men but always insists on his orders being obeyed，

The original text has 令素行者. 令素 is certainly awkward without 行， but on the other hand it is clear that Tu Mu accepted the T‘ung Tien text， which is identical with ours. He says: “A general ought{99} in time of peace to show kindly confidence in his men and also make his authority respected， so that when they come to face the enemy， orders may be executed and discipline maintained， because they all trust and look up to him.” What Sun Tzŭ has said in § 44， however， would lead one rather to expect something like this: “If a general is always confident that his orders will be carried out，” etc. Hence I am tempted to think that he may have written 令素信行者. But this is perhaps too conjectural.

the gain will be mutual.

Chang Yü says: 上以信使民民以慑服上是高下相得也 “The general has confidence in the men under his command， and the men are docile， having confidence in him. Thus the gain is mutual.” He quotes a pregnant sentence from Wei Liao Tzŭ， ch. 4: 令之之法小過無更小疑無中 “The art of giving orders is not to try to rectify minor blunders and not to be swayed by petty doubts.” Vacillation and fussiness are the surest means of sapping the confidence of an army. Capt. Calthrop winds up the chapter with a final mistranslation of a more than usually heinous description: “Orders are always obeyed， if general and soldiers are in sympathy.” Besides inventing the latter half of the sentence， he has managed to invert protasis and apodosis.

Only about a third of the chapter， comprising §§ 1–13， deals with 地形， the subject being more fully treated in ch. XI. The “six calamities” are discussed in §§ 14–20， and the rest of the chapter is again a mere string of desultory remarks， though not less interesting， perhaps， on that account.

1. 孫子曰地形有通者有挂者有支者有隘者有險者有遠者

Sun Tzŭ said: We may distinguish six kinds of terrain， to wit: (1) Accessible ground;

Mei Yao-ch‘ên says: 谈路交達 “plentifully provided with roads and means of communication.”

(2) entangling ground;

The same commentator says: 網羅之地往必掛綴 “Net-like country， venturing into which you become entangled.”

(3) temporising ground;

Tu Yu explains 支 as 久. This meaning is still retained in modern phrases such as 支托， 支演 “stave off，” “delay.” I do not know why Capt. Calthrop calls 支地 “suspended ground，” unless he is confusing it with 挂地.

(4) narrow passes; (5) precipitous heights;

The root idea in 隘 is narrowness; in 險， steepness.

(6) positions at a great distance from the enemy.

It is hardly necessary to point out the faultiness of this classification. A strange lack of logical perception is shown in the Chinaman’s unquestioning acceptance of glaring cross-divisions such as the above.

{101}

2. 我不错往彼不错來曰通

Ground which can be freely traversed by both sides is called accessible.

Generally speaking， 平陸 “level country” is meant. Cf. IX. § 9: 處易.

3. 通形者先居高陽利糧谈以戰則利

With regard to ground of this nature，

The T‘ung Tien reads 居通地.

be before the enemy in occupying the raised and sunny spots，

See IX. § 2. The T‘ung Tien reads 先據其地.

and carefully guard your line of supplies.

A curious use of 利 as a verb， if our text is right. The general meaning is doubtless， as Tu Yu says， 無使敵絶己糧谈 “not to allow the enemy to cut your communications.” Tu Mu， who was not a soldier and can hardly have had any practical experience of fighting， goes more into detail and speaks of protecting the line of communications by a wall (壘)， or enclosing it by embankments on each side (作甬谈)! In view of Napoleon’s dictum， “the secret of war lies in the communications，”[175] we could wish that Sun Tzŭ had done more than skirt the edge of this important subject here and in I. § 10， VII. § 11. Col. Henderson says: “The line of supply may be said to be as vital to the existence of an army as the heart to the life of a human being. Just as the duellist who finds his adversary’s point menacing him with certain death， and his own guard astray， is compelled to conform to his adversary’s movements， and to content himself with warding off his thrusts， so the commander whose communications are suddenly threatened finds himself in a false position， and he will be fortunate if he has not to change all his plans， to split up his force into more or less isolated detachments， and to fight with inferior numbers on ground which he has not had time to prepare， and where defeat will not be an ordinary failure， but will entail the ruin or the surrender of his whole army.”[176]

Then you will be able to fight with advantage.

Omitted by Capt. Calthrop.

{102}

4. 不错往難以返曰挂

Ground which can be abandoned but is hard to re-occupy is called entangling.

Capt. Calthrop is wrong in translating 返 “retreat from it.”

5. 挂形者敵無備出而勝之敵若有備出而不勝難以返不利

From a position of this sort， if the enemy is unprepared， you may sally forth and defeat him. But if the enemy is prepared for your coming， and you fail to defeat him， then， return being impossible， disaster will ensue.

不利 (an example of litotes) is paraphrased by Mei Yao-ch‘ên as 必受制 “you will receive a check.”

6. 我出而不利彼出而不利曰支

When the position is such that neither side will gain by making the first move， it is called temporising ground.

俱未便久坚持也 “Each side finds it inconvenient to move， and the situation remains at a deadlock” (Tu Yu).

7. 支形者敵雖利我我無出也引而去令敵半出而擊之利

In a position of this sort， even though the enemy should offer us an attractive bait，

Tu Yu says 佯背我去 “turning their backs on us and pretending to flee.” But this is only one of the lures which might induce us to quit our position. Here again 利 is used as a verb， but this time in a different sense: “to hold out an advantage to.”

it will be advisable not to stir forth， but rather to retreat， thus enticing the enemy in his turn; then， when part of his army has come out， we may deliver our attack with advantage.

Mei Yao-ch‘ên paraphrases the passage in a curious jingle， the scheme of rhymes being abcbdd: 各居所險，先出必敗，利而誘我，我不可愛，僞去引敵，半出而擊.

{103}

8. 隘形者我先居之必盈之以待敵

With regard to narrow passes， if you can occupy them first，

Capt. Calthrop says: “Defiles， make haste to occupy.” But this is a conditional clause， answering to 若敵先居之 in the next paragraph.

let them be strongly garrisoned and await the advent of the enemy.

Because then， as Tu Yu observes， 齐制在我然後特地以制敵 “the initiative will lie with us， and by making sudden and unexpected attacks we shall have the enemy at our mercy.” The commentators make a great pother about the precise meaning of 盈， which to the foreign reader seems to present no difficulty whatever.

9. 若敵先居之盈而勿從不盈而從之

Should the enemy forestall you in occupying a pass， do not go after him if the pass is fully garrisoned， but only if it is weakly garrisoned.

10. 險形者我先居之必居高陽以待敵

With regard to precipitous heights， if you are beforehand with your adversary， you should occupy the raised and sunny spots， and there wait for him to come up.

Ts‘ao Kung says: 地形險隘尤不可致於东谈主 “The particular advantage of securing heights and defiles is that your actions cannot then be dictated by the enemy.” [For the enunciation of the grand principle alluded to， see VI. § 2]. Chang Yü tells the following anecdote of 裴行儉 P‘ei Hsing-chien (A.D. 619–682)， who was sent on a punitive expedition against the Turkic tribes. “At nightfall he pitched his camp as usual， and it had already been completely fortified by wall and ditch， when suddenly he gave orders that the army should shift its quarters to a hill near by. This was highly displeasing to his officers， who protested loudly against the extra fatigue which it would entail on the men. P‘ei Hsing-chien， however， paid no heed to their remonstrances and had the camp moved as quickly as possible. The same night， a terrific storm came on， which flooded their former place of encampment to the depth of over twelve feet. The recalcitrant officers were amazed at the sight， and owned that they had been in the wrong. ‘How did you know what was going to happen?’ they asked. P‘ei Hsing-chien replied: ‘From this time forward be content to obey orders without asking{104} unnecessary questions.’ [See Chiu T‘ang Shu， ch. 84， fol. 12 ro， and Hsin T‘ang Shu， ch. 108， fol. 5 vo.] From this it may be seen，” Chang Yü continues， “that high and sunny places are advantageous not only for fighting， but also because they are immune from disastrous floods.”

11. 若敵先居之引而去之勿從也

If the enemy has occupied them before you， do not follow him， but retreat and try to entice him away.

The turning-point of 李世民 Li Shih-min’s campaign in 621 A.D. against the two rebels， 竇建德 Tou Chien-tê， King of 夏 Hsia， and 王世充 Wang Shih-ch‘ung， Prince of 鄭 Chêng， was his seizure of the heights of 武牢 Wu-lao， in spite of which Tou Chien-tê persisted in his attempt to relieve his ally in Lo-yang， was defeated and taken prisoner. [See Chiu T‘ang Shu， ch. 2， fol. 5 vo and also ch. 54.]

12. 遠形者勢均難以挑戰戰而不利

If you are situated at a great distance from the enemy， and the strength of the two armies is equal，

The T‘ung Tien reads 夫通形均勢.

it is not easy to provoke a battle，

Ts‘ao Kung says that 挑戰 means 延敵 “challenging the enemy.” But the enemy being far away， that plainly involves， as Tu Yu says， 迎敵 “going to meet him.” The point of course is， that we must not think of undertaking a long and wearisome march， at the end of which 是我困敵銳 “we should， be exhausted and our adversary fresh and keen.”

and fighting will be to your disadvantage.

13. 凡此六者地之谈也將之至任不可不察也

These six are the principles connected with Earth.

Or perhaps， “the principles relating to ground.” See， however， I. § 8.

The general who has attained a responsible post must be careful to study them.

Capt. Calthrop omits 至任. Out of the foregoing six 地形， it will be noticed that nos. 3 and 6 have really no reference to the configuration of the country， and that only 4 and 5 can be said to convey any definite geographical idea.

{105}

14. 故兵有走者有弛者有陷者有崩者有亂者有北者凡此六者非天之災將之過也

Now an army is exposed to six several calamities， not arising from natural causes，

The T‘u Shu reads 六合之災.

but from faults for which the general is responsible. These are: (1) Flight; (2) insubordination; (3) collapse; (4) ruin; (5) disorganisation; (6) rout.

I take exception to Capt. Calthrop’s rendering of 陷 and 崩 as “distress” and “disorganisation，” respectively.

15. 夫勢均以一擊十曰走

Other conditions being equal， if one force is hurled against another ten times its size， the result will be the flight of the former.

Cf. III. § 10. The general’s fault here is that of 不虞力 “not calculating the enemy’s strength.” It is obvious that 勢 cannot have the same force as in § 12， where it was equivalent to 军力. I should not be inclined， however， to limit it， with Chang Yü， to 將之智勇兵之利銳 “the wisdom and valour of the general and the sharpness of the weapons.” As Li Ch‘üan very justly remarks， 若得形便之地用奇伏之計則可矣 “Given a decided advantage in position， or the help of some stratagem such as a flank attack or an ambuscade， it would be quite possible [to fight in the ratio of one to ten].”

16. 卒强吏弱曰弛吏强卒弱曰陷

When the common soldiers are too strong and their officers too weak， the result is insubordination.

弛 “laxity”—the metaphor being taken from an unstrung bow. Capt. Calthrop’s “relaxation” is not good， on account of its ambiguity. Tu Mu cites the unhappy case of 田布 T‘ien Pu [Hsin T‘ang Shu， ch. 148]， who was sent to 魏 Wei in 821 A.D. with orders to lead an army against 王廷湊 Wang T‘ing-ts‘ou. But the whole time he was in command， his soldiers treated him with the utmost contempt， and openly flouted his authority by riding about the camp on donkeys， several thousands at a time. T‘ien Pu was powerless to put a stop to this conduct， and when，{106} after some months had passed， he made an attempt to engage the enemy， his troops turned tail and dispersed in every direction. After that， the unfortunate man committed suicide by cutting his throat.

When the officers are too strong and the common soldiers too weak， the result is collapse.

Ts‘ao Kung says: 吏强欲進卒弱輒陷 “The officers are energetic and want to press on， the common soldiers are feeble and suddenly collapse.” Note that 弱 is to be taken literally of physical weakness， whereas in the former clause it is figurative. Li Ch‘üan makes 陷 equivalent to 敗， and Tu Mu explains it as 陷沒於死地 “stumbling into a death-trap.”

17. 大吏怒而不屈遇敵懟而自戰將不知其能曰崩

When the higher officers

大吏， according to Ts‘ao Kung， are the 小將 “generals of inferior rank.” But Li Ch‘üan， Ch‘ên Hao and Wang Hsi take the term as simply convertible with 將 or 大將.

are angry and insubordinate， and on meeting the enemy give battle on their own account from a feeling of resentment， before the commander-in-chief can tell whether or no he is in a position to fight， the result is ruin.

Ts‘ao Kung makes 大將， understood， the subject of 怒， which seems rather far-fetched. Wang Hsi’s note is: 謂將怒不以理且不知裨佐之才激致其兇懟如山之崩壞也 “This means， the general is angry without just cause， and at the same time does not appreciate the ability of his subordinate officers; thus he arouses fierce resentment and brings an avalanche of ruin upon his head.” He takes 能， therefore， in the sense of 才; but I think that Ch‘ên Hao is right in his paraphrase 不顧能否 “they don’t care if it be possible or no.” My interpretation of the whole passage is that of Mei Yao-ch‘ên and Chang Yü. Tu Mu gives a long extract from the Tso Chuan， 宣公， XII. 3， showing how the great battle of 邲 Pi [597 B.C.] was lost for the 晉 Chin State through the contumacy of 先縠 Hsien Hu and the resentful spite of 魏錡 Wei I and 趙旃 Chao Chan. Chang Yü also alludes to the mutinous conduct of 欒黶 Luan Yen [ibid. 襄公， XIV. 3].

{107}

18. 將弱不嚴教谈不解吏卒無常陳兵縱橫曰亂

When the general is weak and without authority; when his orders are not clear and distinct;

Wei Liao Tzŭ (ch. 4) says: 上無疑令，則衆不二聽，動無疑事，則衆不二志 “If the commander gives his orders with decision， the soldiers will not wait to hear them twice; if his moves are made without vacillation， the soldiers will not be in two minds about doing their duty.” General Baden-Powell says， italicising the words: “The secret of getting successful work out of your trained men lies in one nutshell—in the clearness of the instructions they receive.”[177] Assuming that clear instructions beget confidence， this is very much what Wei Liao Tzŭ (loc. cit.) goes on to say: 未有不信其心而能得其力者也. Cf. also Wu Tzŭ ch. 3: 用兵之害猶豫最大三軍之災生於狐疑 “the most fatal defect in a military leader is diffidence; the worst calamities that befall an army arise from hesitation.”

when there are no fixed duties assigned to officers and men，

吏卒齐不拘常度 “Neither officers nor men have any regular routine” [Tu Mu].

and the ranks are formed in a slovenly haphazard manner， the result is utter disorganisation.

19. 將不行料敵以少合衆以弱擊强兵無選鋒曰北

When a general， unable to estimate the enemy’s strength， allows an inferior force to engage a larger one， or hurls a weak detachment against a powerful one， and neglects to place picked soldiers in the front rank， the result must be a rout.

Chang Yü paraphrases the latter part of the sentence 不選驍勇之士使爲先鋒兵必敗北也， and continues: 凡戰必用精銳爲前鋒者一則壯吾志一則挫敵威也 “Whenever there is fighting to be done， the keenest spirits should be{108} appointed to serve in the front ranks， both in order to strengthen the resolution of our own men and to demoralise the enemy.” Cf. the primi ordines of Caesar (“De Bello Gallico，” V. 28， 44 et al.). There seems little to distinguish 北 from 走 in § 15， except that 北 is a more forcible word.

20. 凡此六者敗之谈也將之至任不可不察也

These are six ways of courting defeat，

Ch‘ên Hao makes them out to be: (1) 不量寡衆 “neglect to estimate the enemy’s strength;” (2) 本乏刑德 “want of authority;” (3) 失於訓練 “defective training;” (4) 非理興怒 “unjustifiable anger;” (5) 王法不行 “non-observance of discipline;” (6) 不擇驍果 “failure to use picked men.”

which must be carefully noted by the general who has attained a responsible post.

See supra， § 13.

21. 夫地形者兵之助也料敵制勝計險阨遠近上將之谈也

The natural formation of the country is the soldier’s best ally;

Chia Lin’s text has the reading 易 for 助. Ch‘ên Hao says: 天時不如地利 “The advantages of weather and season are not equal to those connected with ground.”

but a power of estimating the adversary，

The insertion of a “but” is necessary to show the connection of thought here. A general should always utilise， but never rely wholly on natural advantages of terrain.

of controlling the forces of victory，

制勝 is one of those condensed expressions which mean so much in Chinese， and so little in an English translation. What it seems to imply is complete mastery of the situation from the beginning.

and of shrewdly calculating difficulties， dangers and distances，

The T‘ung Tien and Yü Lan read 計極險易历害遠近. I am decidedly puzzled by Capt. Calthrop’s translation: “an eye for steepness， command and distances.” Where did he find the word which I have put in italics?

{109}

constitutes the test of a great general.

A somewhat free translation of 谈. As Chang Yü remarks， these are 兵之本 “the essentials of soldiering，” ground being only a helpful accessory.

22. 知此而用戰者必勝不知此而用戰者必敗

He who knows these things， and in fighting puts his knowledge into practice， will win his battles. He who knows them not， nor practises them， will surely be defeated.

23. 故戰谈必勝主曰無戰必戰可也戰谈不勝主曰必戰無戰可也

If fighting is sure to result in victory， then you must fight， even though the ruler forbid it; if fighting will not result in victory， then you must not fight even at the ruler’s bidding.

Cf. VIII. § 3 fin. Huang-shih Kung of the Ch‘in dynasty， who is said to have been the patron of 張良 Chang Liang and to have written the 三略， has these words attributed to him: 出軍行師將在自專進退內御則功難成故聖主明王跪而推轂 “The responsibility of setting an army in motion must devolve on the general alone; if advance and retreat are controlled from the Palace， brilliant results will hardly be achieved. Hence the god-like ruler and the enlightened monarch are content to play a humble part in furthering their country’s cause [lit.， kneel down to push the chariot wheel].” This means that 閫外之事將軍裁之 “in matters lying outside the zenana， the decision of the military commander must be absolute.” Chang Yü also quotes the saying: 軍中不聞皇帝之詔 “Decrees of the Son of Heaven do not penetrate the walls of a camp.” Napoleon， who has been accused of allowing his generals too little independence of action， speaks in the same sense: “Un général en chef n’est pas à couvert de ses fautes à la guerre par un ordre de son souverain ou du ministre， quand celui qui le donne est éloigné du champ d’opération， et qu’il connaît mal， ou ne connaît pas du tout le dernier état des choses.”[178]

{110}

24. 故進不求名退不避罪唯民是保而利合於主國之寳也

The general who advances without coveting fame and retreats without fearing disgrace，

It was Wellington， I think， who said that the hardest thing of all for a soldier is to retreat.

whose only thought is to protect his country and do good service for his sovereign，

合， which is omitted by the T‘u Shu， is said by Ch‘ên Hao to be equivalent to 歸. If it had to be separately translated， it would be something like our word “accrue.”

is the jewel of the kingdom.

A noble presentment， in few words， of the Chinese “happy warrior.” Such a man， says Ho Shih， 罪孽甚身不悔也 “even if he had to suffer punishment， would not regret his conduct.”

25. 視卒如嬰兒故可與之赴深谿視卒如愛子故可與之俱死

Regard your soldiers as your children， and they will follow you into the deepest valleys; look on them as your own beloved sons， and they will stand by you even unto death.

Cf. I. § 6. In this connection， Tu Mu draws for us an engaging picture of the famous general Wu Ch‘i， from whose treatise on war I have frequently had occasion to quote: “He wore the same clothes and ate the same food as the meanest of his soldiers， refused to have either a horse to ride or a mat to sleep on， carried his own surplus rations wrapped in a parcel， and shared every hardship with his men. One of his soldiers was suffering from an abscess， and Wu Ch‘i himself sucked out the virus. The soldier’s mother， hearing this， began wailing and lamenting. Somebody asked her， saying: ‘Why do you cry? Your son is only a common soldier， and yet the commander-in-chief himself has sucked the poison from his sore.’ The woman replied: ‘Many years ago， Lord Wu performed a similar service for my husband， who never left him afterwards， and finally met his death at the hands of the enemy. And now that he has done the same for my son， he too will fall fighting I know not where’.” Li Ch‘üan mentions 楚子 the Viscount of Ch‘u， who invaded the small state of 蕭 Hsiao during the winter. 申公 The Duke of Shên said to him: “Many of{111} the soldiers are suffering severely from the cold.” So he made a round of the whole army， comforting and encouraging the men; and straightway they felt as if they were clothed in garments lined with floss silk. [Tso Chuan， 宣公， XII. 5]. Chang Yü alludes to the same passage， saying: 温言一撫士同挾纊.

26. 厚而不行使愛而不行令亂而不行治比喻驕子不可用也

If， however， you are indulgent， but unable to make your authority felt; kind-hearted， but unable to enforce your commands; and incapable， moreover， of quelling disorder:

Capt. Calthrop has got these three clauses quite wrong. The last he translates: “overindulgence may produce disorder.”

then your soldiers must be likened to spoilt children; they are useless for any practical purpose.

Cf. IX. § 42. We read in the 陰符經， pt. 2: 害生于想 “Injury comes out of kindness.” Li Ching once said that if you could make your soldiers afraid of you， they would not be afraid of the enemy. Tu Mu recalls an instance of stern military discipline which occurred in 219 A.D.， when 呂蒙 Lü Mêng was occupying the town of 江陵 Chiang-ling. He had given stringent orders to his army not to molest the inhabitants nor take anything from them by force. Nevertheless， a certain officer serving under his banner， who happened to be a fellow-townsman， ventured to appropriate a bamboo hat (笠) belonging to one of the people， in order to wear it over his regulation helmet as a protection against the rain. Lü Mêng considered that the fact of his being also a native of 汝南 Ju-nan should not be allowed to palliate a clear breach of discipline， and accordingly he ordered his summary execution， the tears rolling down his face， however， as he did so. This act of severity filled the army with wholesome awe， and from that time forth even articles dropped in the highway were not picked up. [San Kuo Chih， ch. 54， f. 13 ro. & vo.].

27. 知吾卒之不错擊而不知敵之不可擊勝之半也

If we know that our own men are in a condition to attack， but are unaware that the enemy is not open to attack， we have gone only halfway towards victory.

That is， as Ts‘ao Kung says， “the issue in this case is uncertain.”

{112}

28. 知敵之可擊而不知吾卒之不不错擊勝之半也

If we know that the enemy is open to attack， but are unaware that our own men are not in a condition to attack， we have gone only halfway towards victory.

Cf. III. § 13 (1).

29. 知敵之可擊知吾卒之不错擊而不知地形之不不错戰勝之半也

If we know that the enemy is open to attack， and also know that our men are in a condition to attack， but are unaware that the nature of the ground makes fighting impracticable， we have still gone only halfway towards victory.

I may take this opportunity of pointing out the rather nice distinction in meaning between 擊 and 攻. The latter is simply “to attack” without any further implication， whereas 擊 is a stronger word which in nine cases out of ten means “to attack with expectation of victory，” “to fall upon，” as we should say， or even “to crush.” On the other hand， 擊 is not quite synonymous with 伐， which is mostly used of operations on a larger scale， as of one State making war on another， often with the added idea of invasion. 征， finally， has special reference to the subjugation of rebels. See Mencius， VII. 2. ii. 2.

30. 故知兵者動而不迷舉而不窮

Hence the experienced soldier， once in motion， is never bewildered; once he has broken camp， he is never at a loss.

The reason being， according to Tu Mu， that he has taken his measures so thoroughly as to ensure victory beforehand. “He does not move recklessly，” says Chang Yü， “so that when he does move， he makes no mistakes.” Another reading substitutes 困 for 迷 and 頓 for 窮. The latter variant only is adopted by the T‘ung Tien and Yü Lan. Note that 窮 here means “at the end of his mental resources.”

31. 故曰心中少见勝乃不殆知地知天勝乃可全

Hence the saying: If you know the enemy and know yourself， your victory will not stand in doubt;

{113}

Capt. Calthrop makes the saying end here， which cannot be justified.

if you know Heaven and know Earth，

天 and 地 are transposed for the sake of the jingle between 天 and 全. The original text， however， has 知天知地， and the correction has been made from the T‘ung Tien.

you may make your victory complete.

As opposed to 勝之半， above. The original text has 勝乃不窮， the corruption being perhaps due to the occurrence of 不窮 in the preceding sentence. Here， however 不窮 would not be synonymous with 不困， but equivalent to 不不错窮 “inexhaustible，” “beyond computation.” Cf. V. § 11. The T‘ung Tien has again supplied the true reading. Li Ch‘üan sums up as follows: 东谈主事天時地利三者同知則百戰百勝 “Given a knowledge of three things—the affairs of man， the seasons of heaven and the natural advantages of earth—， victory will invariably crown your battles.”

Li Ch‘üan is not quite right in calling these 勝敵之地. As we shall see， some of them are highly disadvantageous from the military point of view. Wang Hsi more correctly says: 用兵之地历害有九也 “There are nine military situations， good and bad.” One would like to distinguish the 九地 from the six 地形 of chap. X by saying that the latter refer to the natural formation or geographical features of the country， while the 九地 have more to do with the condition of the army， being 地勢 “situations” as opposed to “grounds.” But it is soon found impossible to carry out the distinction. Both are cross-divisions， for among the 地形 we have “temporising ground” side by side with “narrow passes，” while in the present chapter there is even greater confusion.

1. 孫子曰用兵之法有散地有輕地有爭地有交地有衢地有重地有圮地有圍地有死地

Sun Tzŭ said: The art of war recognises nine varieties of ground: (1) Dispersive ground; (2) facile ground; (3) contentious ground; (4) open ground; (5) ground of intersecting highways; (6) serious ground; (7) difficult ground; (8) hemmed-in ground; (9) desperate ground.

2. 諸侯自戰其地者爲散地

When a chieftain is fighting in his own territory， it is dispersive ground.

So called because the soldiers， being near to their homes and anxious to see their wives and children， are likely to seize the opportunity afforded by a battle and scatter in every direction. “In their advance，” observes Tu Mu， “they will lack the valour of desperation， and when they retreat， they will find harbours of refuge.” The 者， which appears in the T‘u Shu， seems to have been accidentally omitted in my edition of the standard text.

{115}

3. 入东谈主之地而不深者爲輕地

When he has penetrated into hostile territory， but to no great distance， it is facile ground.

Li Ch‘üan and Ho Shih say 輕於退也 “because of the facility for retreating，” and the other commentators give similar explanations. Tu Mu remarks: 師出逾境必焚舟梁示民無返顧之心 “When your army has crossed the border， you should burn your boats and bridges， in order to make it clear to everybody that you have no hankering after home.” I do not think that “disturbing ground，” Capt. Calthrop’s rendering of 輕地， has anything to justify it. If an idiomatic translation is out of the question， one should at least attempt to be literal.

4. 我得則利彼得亦利者爲爭地

Ground the possession of which imports great advantage to either side， is contentious ground.

I must apologise for using this word in a sense not known to the dictionary， i.e. “to be contended for”—Tu Mu’s 必爭之地. Ts‘ao Kung says: 不错少勝衆弱勝强 “ground on which the few and the weak can defeat the many and the strong，” such as 阨喉 “the neck of a pass，” instanced by Li Ch‘üan. Thus， Thermopylae was a 爭地， because the possession of it， even for a few days only， meant holding the entire invading army in check and thus gaining invaluable time. Cf. Wu Tzŭ， ch. V. ad init.: 以一擊十莫善於阨 “For those who have to fight in the ratio of one to ten， there is nothing better than a narrow pass.” When 呂光 Lü Kuang was returning from his triumphant expedition to Turkestan in 385 A.D.， and had got as far as 宜禾 I-ho， laden with spoils， 梁熙 Liang Hsi， administrator of 涼州 Liang-chou， taking advantage of the death of Fu Chien， King of Ch‘in， plotted against him and was for barring his way into the province. 楊翰 Yang Han， governor of 高昌 Kao-ch‘ang， counselled him， saying: “Lü Kuang is fresh from his victories in the west， and his soldiers are vigorous and mettlesome. If we oppose him in the shifting sands of the desert， we shall be no match for him， and we must therefore try a different plan. Let us hasten to occupy the defile at the mouth of the 高梧 Kao-wu pass， thus cutting him off from supplies of water， and when his troops are prostrated with thirst， we can dictate our own terms without moving. Or if you think that the pass I mention is too far off， we could make a stand against him at the 伊吾 I-wu pass， which is{116} nearer. The cunning and resource of 子房 Tzŭ-fang himself [i.e. 張良] would be expended in vain against the enormous strength of these two positions.” Liang Hsi， refusing to act on this advice， was overwhelmed and swept away by the invader. [See 晉書， ch. 122， fol. 3 ro， and 歴代紀事年表， ch. 43， fol. 26.]

5. 我不错往彼不错來者爲交地

Ground on which each side has liberty of movement is open ground.

This is only a makeshift translation of 交， which according to Ts‘ao Kung stands for 交錯 “ground covered with a network of roads，” like a chess-board. Another interpretation， suggested by Ho Shih， is 交通 “ground on which intercommunication is easy.” In either case， it must evidently be 平原 “flat country，” and therefore 不可杜絶 “cannot be blocked.” Cf. 通形， X. § 2.

6. 諸侯之地三屬先至而得六合之衆者爲衢地

Ground which forms the key to three contiguous states，

我與敵相當而旁有他國也 “Our country adjoining the enemy’s and a third country conterminous with both.” [Ts‘ao Kung.] Mêng Shih instances the small principality of 鄭 Chêng， which was bounded on the north-east by 齊 Ch‘i， on the west by 晉 Chin， and on the south by 楚 Ch‘u.

so that he who occupies it first has most of the Empire at his command，

六合 of course stands for the loose confederacy of states into which China was divided under the Chou dynasty. The belligerent who holds this dominating position can constrain most of them to become his allies. See infra， § 48. 衆 appears at first sight to be “the masses” or “population” of the Empire， but it is more probably， as Tu Yu says， 諸侯之衆.

is ground of intersecting highways.

Capt. Calthrop’s “path-ridden ground” might stand well enough for 交地 above， but it does not bring out the force of 衢地， which clearly denotes the central position where important highways meet.

{117}

7. 入东谈主之地深背城邑多者爲重地

When an army has penetrated into the heart of a hostile country， leaving a number of fortified cities in its rear，

After 多， the T‘ung Tien intercalates the gloss 難以返.

it is serious ground.

Wang Hsi explains the name by saying that 兵至此者事勢重也 “when an army has reached such a point， its situation is serious.” Li Ch‘üan instances (1) the victorious march of 樂毅 Yo I into the capital of Ch‘i in 284 B.C.， and (2) the attack on Ch‘u， six years later， by the Ch‘in general 白起 Po Ch‘i.

8. 山林險阻沮澤凡難行之谈者爲圮地

Mountain forests，

Or simply， “forests.” I follow the T‘u Shu in omitting the 行 before 山林， given in the standard text， which is not only otiose but spoils the rhythm of the sentence.

rugged steeps， marshes and fens—all country that is hard to traverse: this is difficult ground.

圮 p‘i3 (to be distinguished from 圯 i4) is defined by K‘ang Hsi (after the Shuo Wên) as 毁 “to destroy.” Hence Chia Lin explains 圮地 as ground 經水所毁 “that has been ruined by water passing over it，” and Tu Yu simply as 沮洳之地 “swampy ground.” But Ch‘ên Hao says that the word is specially applied to deep hollows—what Chu-ko Liang， he tells us， used to designate by the expressive term 地獄 “earth-hells.” Compare the 天井 of IX. § 15.

9. 所由入者隘所從歸者迂彼寡不错擊吾之衆者爲圍地

Ground which is reached through narrow gorges， and from which we can only retire by tortuous paths， so that a small number of the enemy would suffice to crush a large body of our men: this is hemmed-in ground.

10. 疾戰則存不疾戰則一火者爲死地

Ground on which we can only be saved from destruction by fighting without delay， is desperate ground.

{118}

The situation， as pictured by Ts‘ao Kung， is very similar to the 圍地， except that here escape is no longer possible: 前有峻岭後有巨流進則不得退則有礙 “A lofty mountain in front， a large river behind， advance impossible， retreat blocked.” Ch‘ên Hao says: 东谈主在死地如坐漏船伏燒屋 “to be on ‘desperate ground’ is like sitting in a leaking boat or crouching in a burning house.” Tu Mu quotes from Li Ching a vivid description of the plight of an army thus entrapped: “Suppose an army invading hostile territory without the aid of local guides:—it falls into a fatal snare and is at the enemy’s mercy. A ravine on the left， a mountain on the right， a pathway so perilous that the horses have to be roped together and the chariots carried in slings， no passage open in front， retreat cut off behind， no choice but to proceed in single file (鴈行魚貫之嚴). Then， before there is time to range our soldiers in order of battle， the enemy in overwhelming strength suddenly appears on the scene. Advancing， we can nowhere take a breathing-space; retreating， we have no haven of refuge. We seek a pitched battle， but in vain; yet standing on the defensive， none of us has a moment’s respite. If we simply maintain our ground， whole days and months will crawl by; the moment we make a move， we have to sustain the enemy’s attacks on front and rear. The country is wild， destitute of water and plants; the army is lacking in the necessaries of life， the horses are jaded and the men worn-out， all the resources of strength and skill unavailing， the pass so narrow that a single man defending it can check the onset of ten thousand; all means of offence in the hands of the enemy， all points of vantage already forfeited by ourselves:—in this terrible plight， even though we had the most valiant soldiers and the keenest of weapons， how could they be employed with the slightest effect?” Students of Greek history may be reminded of the awful close to the Sicilian expedition， and the agony of the Athenians under Nicias and Demosthenes. [See Thucydides， VII. 78 sqq.].

11. 是故散地則無以戰輕地則無止爭地則無攻

On dispersive ground， therefore， fight not. On facile ground， halt not. On contentious ground， attack not.

But rather let all your energies be bent on occupying the advantageous position first. So Ts‘ao Kung. Li Ch‘üan and others， however， suppose the meaning to be that the enemy has already forestalled us， so that it would be sheer madness to attack. In the 孫子敘錄， when the King of Wu inquires what should be done in this case， Sun Tzŭ replies: “The rule with regard to contentious ground is that those in possession have the advantage over the other side. If a position of this kind is{119} secured first by the enemy， beware of attacking him. Lure him away by pretending to flee—show your banners and sound your drums—make a dash for other places that he cannot afford to lose—trail brushwood and raise a dust—confound his ears and eyes—detach a body of your best troops， and place it secretly in ambuscade. Then your opponent will sally forth to the rescue.”

12. 交地則無絶衢地則合交

On open ground， do not try to block the enemy’s way.

Because the attempt would be futile， and would expose the blocking force itself to serious risks. There are two interpretations of 無絶. I follow that of Chang Yü (不不错兵阻絶其路). The other is indicated in Ts‘ao Kung’s brief note: 相及屬也 “Draw closer together”—i.e.， see that a portion of your own army is not cut off. Wang Hsi points out that 交地 is only another name for the 通地 “accessible ground” of X. § 2， and says that the advice here given is simply a variation of 利糧谈 “keep a sharp eye on the line of supplies，” be careful that your communications are not cut. The T‘ung Tien reads 無相絶.

On ground of intersecting highways， join hands with your allies.

Or perhaps， “form alliances with neighbouring states.” Thus Ts‘ao Kung has: 結諸侯也. Capt. Calthrop’s “cultivate intercourse” is much too timid and vague. The original text reads 交合.

13. 重地則掠圮地則行

On serious ground， gather in plunder.

On this， Li Ch‘üan has the following delicious note: 深切敵境不可非義失东谈主心如漢高祖入秦無犯婦女無取寳貨得东谈主心也此筌以掠字爲無掠字 “When an army penetrates far into the enemy’s country， care must be taken not to alienate the people by unjust treatment. Follow the example of the Han Emperor Kao Tsu， whose march into Ch‘in territory was marked by no violation of women or looting of valuables. [Nota bene: this was in 207 B.C.， and may well cause us to blush for the Christian armies that entered Peking in 1900 A.D.] Thus he won the hearts of all. In the present passage， then， I think that the true reading must be， not 掠 ‘plunder’， but 無掠 ‘do not plunder’.” Alas， I fear that in this instance the worthy commentator’s feelings outran his judgment. Tu Mu，{120} at least， has no such illusions. He says: “When encamped on ‘serious ground，’ there being no inducement as yet to advance further， and no possibility of retreat， one ought to take measures for a protracted resistance by bringing in provisions from all sides， and keep a close watch on the enemy.” Cf. also II. § 9: 因糧於敵.

In difficult ground， keep steadily on the march.

Or， in the words of VIII. §2， 無舍 “do not encamp.”

14. 圍地則謀死地則戰

On hemmed-in ground， resort to stratagem.

Ts‘ao Kung says: 發奇謀 “Try the effect of some unusual artifice;” and Tu Yu amplifies this by saying: 居此則當權謀詐譎不错免難 “In such a position， some scheme must be devised which will suit the circumstances， and if we can succeed in deluding the enemy， the peril may be escaped.” This is exactly what happened on the famous occasion when Hannibal was hemmed in among the mountains on the road to Casilinum， and to all appearances entrapped by the Dictator Fabius. The stratagem which Hannibal devised to baffle his foes was remarkably like that which T‘ien Tan had also employed with success exactly 62 years before. [See IX. § 24， note.] When night came on， bundles of twigs were fastened to the horns of some 2000 oxen and set on fire， the terrified animals being then quickly driven along the mountain side towards the passes which were beset by the enemy. The strange spectacle of these rapidly moving lights so alarmed and discomfited the Romans that they withdrew from their position， and Hannibal’s army passed safely through the defile. [See Polybius， III. 93， 94; Livy， XXII. 16， 17.]

On desperate ground， fight.

For， as Chia Lin remarks: 力戰或生守隅則死 “if you fight with all your might， there is a chance of life; whereas death is certain if you cling to your corner.”

15. 所謂古之善用兵者能使敵东谈主前後不相及衆寡不相恃貴賤不相救高下不相扶

Those who were called skilful leaders of old

所謂 is omitted in the T‘u Shu text.

knew how to drive a wedge between the enemy’s front and rear;

More literally， “cause the front and rear to lose touch with each other.”

{121}

to prevent co-operation between his large and small divisions; to hinder the good troops from rescuing the bad，

I doubt if 貴賤 can mean “officers and men，” as Capt. Calthrop translates. This is wanted for 高下.

the officers from rallying their men.

The reading 扶， derived from the Yü Lan， must be considered very doubtful. The original text has 救， and the T‘u Shu 收.

16. 卒離而不集兵合而不齊

When the enemy’s men were scattered， they prevented them from concentrating;

Capt. Calthrop translates 卒離 “they scattered the enemy，” which cannot be right.

even when their forces were united， they managed to keep them in disorder.

Mei Yao-ch‘ên’s note makes the sense plain: 或已離而不行合或雖合而不行齊. All these clauses， of course， down to 不齊， are dependent on 使 in § 15.

17. 合於利而動不对於利而止

When it was to their advantage， they made a forward move; when otherwise， they stopped still.

Mei Yao-ch‘ên connects this with the foregoing: 然能使敵若此當須成心則動無利則止 “Having succeeded in thus dislocating the enemy， they would push forward in order to secure any advantage to be gained; if there was no advantage to be gained， they would remain where they were.”

18. 敢問敵衆整而將來待之怎样曰先奪其所愛則聽矣

If asked how to cope with a great host of the enemy in orderly array and on the point of marching to the attack，

敢問 is like 或問， introducing a supposed question.

I should say: “Begin by seizing something which your opponent holds dear; then he will be amenable to your will.”

{122}

Opinions differ as to what Sun Tzŭ had in mind. Ts‘ao Kung thinks it is 其所恃之利 “some strategical advantage on which the enemy is depending.” Tu Mu says: 據我便地畧我野外利其糧谈斯三者敵东谈主之所愛惜倚恃者也 “The three things which an enemy is anxious to do， and on the accomplishment of which his success depends， are: (1) to capture our favourable positions; (2) to ravage our cultivated land; (3) to guard his own communications.” Our object then must be to thwart his plans in these three directions and thus render him helpless. [Cf. III. § 3.] But this exegesis unduly strains the meaning of 奪 and 愛， and I agree with Ch‘ên Hao， who says that 所愛 does not refer only to strategical advantages， but is any person or thing that may happen to be of importance to the enemy. By boldly seizing the initiative in this way， you at once throw the other side on the defensive.

19. 兵之情主速乘东谈主之不足由不虞之谈攻其所不戒也

Rapidity is the essence of war:

兵之情 means “the conditions of war，” not， as Capt. Calthrop says， “the spirit of the troops.” According to Tu Mu， 此統言兵之情狀 “this is a summary of leading principles in warfare，” and he adds: 此乃兵之深情將之至事也 “These are the profoundest truths of military science， and the chief business of the general.” The following anecdotes， told by Ho Shih， show the importance attached to speed by two of China’s greatest generals. In 227 A.D.， 孟達 Mêng Ta， governor of 新城 Hsin-ch‘êng under the Wei Emperor Wên Ti， was meditating defection to the House of Shu， and had entered into correspondence with Chu-ko Liang， Prime Minister of that State. The Wei general Ssŭ-ma I was then military governor of 宛 Wan， and getting wind of Mêng Ta’s treachery， he at once set off with an army to anticipate his revolt， having previously cajoled him by a specious message of friendly import. Ssŭ-ma’s officers came to him and said: “If Mêng Ta has leagued himself with Wu and Shu， the matter should be thoroughly investigated before we make a move.” Ssŭ-ma I replied: “Mêng Ta is an unprincipled man， and we ought to go and punish him at once， while he is still wavering and before he has thrown off the mask.” Then， by a series of forced marches， he brought his army under the walls of Hsin-ch‘êng within the space of eight days. Now Mêng Ta had previously said in a letter to Chu-ko Liang: “Wan is 1200 li from here. When the news of my revolt reaches Ssŭ-ma I， he will at once inform his Imperial Master， but it will be a whole month before any steps can be taken， and by that{123} time my city will be well fortified. Besides， Ssŭ-ma I is sure not to come himself， and the generals that will be sent against us are not worth troubling about.” The next letter， however， was filled with consternation: “Though only eight days have passed since I threw off my allegiance， an army is already at the city-gates. What miraculous rapidity is this!” A fortnight later， Hsin-ch‘êng had fallen and Mêng Ta had lost his head. [See Chin Shu， ch. 1， f. 3.] In 621 A.D.， Li Ching was sent from 夔州 K‘uei-chou in Ssŭ-ch‘uan to reduce the successful rebel 蕭銑 Hsiao Hsien， who had set up as Emperor at the modern 荆州 Ching-chou Fu in Hupeh. It was autumn， and the Yangtsze being then in flood， Hsiao Hsien never dreamt that his adversary would venture to come down through the gorges， and consequently made no preparations. But Li Ching embarked his army without loss of time， and was just about to start when the other generals implored him to postpone his departure until the river was in a less dangerous state for navigation. Li Ching replied: “To the soldier， overwhelming speed is of paramount importance， and he must never miss opportunities. Now is the time to strike， before Hsiao Hsien even knows that we have got an army together. If we seize the present moment when the river is in flood， we shall appear before his capital with startling suddenness， like the thunder which is heard before you have time to stop your ears against it. [See VII， § 19， note.] This is the great principle in war. Even if he gets to know of our approach， he will have to levy his soldiers in such a hurry that they will not be fit to oppose us. Thus the full fruits of victory will be ours.” All came about as he predicted， and Hsiao Hsien was obliged to surrender， nobly stipulating that his people should be spared and he alone suffer the penalty of death. [See Hsin T‘ang Shu， ch. 93， f. 1 vo.]

take advantage of the enemy’s unreadiness， make your way by unexpected routes， and attack unguarded spots.

20. 凡爲客之谈深切則專主东谈主不克

The following are the principles to be observed by an invading force: The further you penetrate into a country， the greater will be the solidarity of your troops， and thus the defenders will not prevail against you.

21. 掠於饒野三軍足食

Make forays in fertile country in order to supply your army with food.

Cf. supra， § 13. Li Ch‘üan does not venture on a note here.

22. 謹養而勿勞併氣積力運兵計謀爲不可測

Carefully study the well-being of your men，

{124}

謹養， according to Wang Hsi， means: 撫循飮食周謹之 “Pet them， humour them， give them plenty of food and drink， and look after them generally.”

and do not overtax them. Concentrate your energy and hoard your strength.

Tu Mu explains these words in a rhyming couplet: 氣全力盛一發取勝; and Ch‘ên Hao recalls the line of action adopted in 224 B.C. by the famous general 王翦 Wang Chien， whose military genius largely contributed to the success of the First Emperor. He had invaded the Ch‘u State， where a universal levy was made to oppose him. But， being doubtful of the temper of his troops， he declined all invitations to fight and remained strictly on the defensive. In vain did the Ch‘u general try to force a battle: day after day Wang Chien kept inside his walls and would not come out， but devoted his whole time and energy to winning the affection and confidence of his men. He took care that they should be well fed， sharing his own meals with them， provided facilities for bathing， and employed every method of judicious indulgence to weld them into a loyal and homogeneous body. After some time had elapsed， he told off certain persons to find out how the men were amusing themselves. The answer was， that they were contending with one another in putting the weight and long-jumping (投石拔距). When Wang Chien heard that they were engaged in these athletic pursuits， he knew that their spirits had been strung up to the required pitch and that they were now ready for fighting. By this time the Ch‘u army， after repeating their challenge again and again， had marched away eastwards in disgust. The Ch‘in general immediately broke up his camp and followed them， and in the battle that ensued they were routed with great slaughter. Shortly afterwards， the whole of Ch‘u was conquered by Ch‘in， and the king 負芻 Fu-ch‘u led into captivity. [See Shih Chi， ch. 73， f. 5 ro. It should be noted that， 楚 being a taboo character under the Ch‘in dynasty， the name figures as 荆 throughout.]

Keep your army continually on the move，

In order that the enemy may never know exactly where you are. It has struck me， however， that the true reading might be， not 運兵， but 連兵 “link your army together” [cf. supra § 46， 吾將使之屬]， which would be more in keeping with 併氣積力. Capt. Calthrop cuts the Gordian knot by omitting the words altogether.

and devise unfathomable plans.

Ch‘ang Yü’s paraphrase is: 常爲不可測度之計.

{125}

23. 投之無所往死且不北死焉不得士东谈主盡力

Throw your soldiers into positions whence there is no escape， and they will prefer death to flight.

Cf. Nicias’ speech to the Athenians: Τό τε ξύμπαν γνῶτε， ὦ ἄνδρες στρατιῶται， ἀναγκαῖόν τε ὂν ὑμῖν ἀνδράσιν ἀγαθοῖς γίγνεσθαι ὡς μὴ ὄντος χωρίου ἐγγὺς ὅποι ἂν μαλακισθέντες σωθείητε， etc. [Thuc. VII. 77. vii.]

If they will face death， there is nothing they may not achieve.

死 by itself constitutes the protasis， and 焉 is the interrogative = 安. Capt. Calthrop makes the protasis end with 得: “If there be no alternative but death.” But I do not see how this is to be got out of the Chinese. Chang Yü gives a clear paraphrase: 士卒死戰安不骄气， and quotes his favourite Wei Liao Tzŭ (ch. 3): 一夫仗劔擊於市萬东谈主無不避之者臣謂非一东谈主之獨勇萬东谈主齐不肖也何則必死與必生固不侔也 “If one man were to run amok with a sword in the market-place， and everybody else tried to get out of his way， I should not allow that this man alone had courage and that all the rest were contemptible cowards. The truth is， that a desperado and a man who sets some value on his life do not meet on even terms.”

Officers and men alike will put forth their uttermost strength.

士东谈主 appears to stand for the more usual 士卒. Chang Yü says: 同在難地安得不共竭其力 “If they are in an awkward place together， they will surely exert their united strength to get out of it.”

24. 兵士甚陷則不懼無所往則固深切則拘不得已則鬥

Soldiers when in desperate straits lose the sense of fear. If there is no place of refuge， they will stand firm. If they are in the heart of a hostile country， they will show a stubborn front.

Capt. Calthrop weakly says: “there is unity，” as though the text were 則專， as in § 20. But 拘 introduces quite a new idea—that of tenacity—which Ts‘ao Kung tries to explain by the word 縛 “to bind fast.”

If there is no help for it， they will fight hard.

{126}

25. 是故其兵不修而戒不求而得不約而親不令而信

Thus， without waiting to be marshalled， the soldiers will be constantly on the qui vive;

Tu Mu says: 不待修整而自戒懼. Capt. Calthrop wrongly translates 不修 “without warnings.”

without waiting to be asked， they will do your will;

Literally， “without asking， you will get.” Chang Yü’s paraphrase is: 不求索而得心意.

without restrictions， they will be faithful;

Chang Yü says: 不約束而親上.

without giving orders， they can be trusted.

This last clause is very similar in sense to the one preceding， except that 親 indicates the soldiers’ attachment to their leader， and 信 the leader’s attitude towards them. I rather doubt if 信 can mean “they will have confidence in their leader，” as the commentary seems to indicate. That way， the sense is not nearly so good. On the other hand， it is just possible that here， as in VIII. § 8 and infra， § 55， 信 may = 申: “without orders， they will carry out [their leader’s plans].” The whole of this paragraph， of course， has reference to “desperate ground.”

26. 禁祥去疑至死無所災

Prohibit the taking of omens， and do away with superstitious doubts.

祥 is amplified by Ts‘ao Kung into 妖祥之言， and 疑 into 猜忌之計. Cf. the Ssŭ-ma Fa， ch. 3: 滅厲祥.

Then， until death itself comes， no calamity need be feared.

The superstitious， “bound in to saucy doubts and fears，” degenerate into cowards and “die many times before their deaths.” Tu Mu quotes Huang-shih Kung: 禁巫祝不得爲吏士卜問軍之福祸恐亂軍士之心 “‘Spells and incantations should be strictly forbidden， and no officer allowed to inquire by divination into the fortunes of an army， for fear the soldier’s minds should be seriously perturbed.’ The meaning is，” he continues， “that if all doubts and scruples are discarded，{127} your men will never falter in their resolution until they die.” The reading of the standard text is 無所之 “there will be no refuge，” which does not fit in well here. I therefore prefer to adopt the variant 災， which evidently stood in Li Ch‘üan’s text.

27. 吾士無餘財非惡貨也無餘命非惡壽也

If our soldiers are not overburdened with money， it is not because they have a distaste for riches; if their lives are not unduly long， it is not because they are disinclined to longevity.

Chang Yü has the best note on this passage: 貨與壽东谈主之所愛亦然以燒擲財寳割棄性命者非憎惡之也不得已也 “Wealth and long life are things for which all men have a natural inclination. Hence， if they burn or fling away valuables， and sacrifice their own lives， it is not that they dislike them， but simply that they have no choice.” Sun Tzŭ is slyly insinuating that， as soldiers are but human， it is for the general to see that temptations to shirk fighting and grow rich are not thrown in their way. Capt. Calthrop， mistaking 惡 for the adjective， has: “not because money is a bad thing ... not because long life is evil.”

28. 令發之日士卒坐者涕霑襟偃臥者涕交頤投之無所往者諸劌马不停蹄也

On the day they are ordered out to battle， your soldiers may weep，

The word in the Chinese is 涕 “snivel.” This is taken to indicate more genuine grief than tears alone.

those sitting up bedewing their garments， and those lying down letting the tears run down their cheeks.

Not because they are afraid， but because， as Ts‘ao Kung says， 齐持必死之計 “all have embraced the firm resolution to do or die.” We may remember that the heroes of the Iliad were equally childlike in showing their emotion. Chang Yü alludes to the mournful parting at the 易 I River between 荆軻 Ching K‘o and his friends， when the former was sent to attempt the life of the King of Ch‘in (afterwards First Emperor) in 227 B.C. The tears of all flowed down like rain as he bade them farewell and uttered the following lines: 風蕭蕭兮，易水寒，{128}壯士一去兮，不復還 “The shrill blast is blowing， Chilly the burn; Your champion is going—Not to return.”[179]

But let them once be brought to bay， and they will display the courage of a Chu or a Kuei.

諸 was the personal name of 專諸 Chuan Chu， a native of the Wu State and contemporary with Sun Tzŭ himself， who was employed by 令郎光 Kung-tzŭ Kuang， better known as Ho Lü Wang， to assassinate his sovereign 王僚 Wang Liao with a dagger which he secreted in the belly of a fish served up at a banquet. He succeeded in his attempt， but was immediately hacked to pieces by the king’s bodyguard. This was in 515 B.C. The other hero referred to， 曹劌 Ts‘ao Kuei (or Ts‘ao 沫 Mo)， performed the exploit which has made his name famous 166 years earlier， in 681 B.C. Lu had been thrice defeated by Ch‘i， and was just about to conclude a treaty surrendering a large slice of territory， when Ts‘ao Kuei suddenly seized 桓公 Huan Kung， the Duke of Ch‘i， as he stood on the altar steps and held a dagger against his chest. None of the Duke’s retainers dared to move a muscle， and Ts‘ao Kuei proceeded to demand full restitution， declaring that Lu was being unjustly treated because she was a smaller and weaker state. Huan Kung， in peril of his life， was obliged to consent， whereupon Ts‘ao Kuei flung away his dagger and quietly resumed his place amid the terrified assemblage without having so much as changed colour. As was to be expected， the Duke wanted afterwards to repudiate the bargain， but his wise old counsellor 管仲 Kuan Chung pointed out to him the impolicy of breaking his word， and the upshot was that this bold stroke regained for Lu the whole of what she had lost in three pitched battles. [For another anecdote of Ts‘ao Kuei see VII. § 27， note; and for the biographies of these three bravos， Ts‘ao， Chuan and Ching， see Shih Chi， ch. 86.]

29. 故善用兵比喻率然率然者常山之虵也擊其首則尾至擊其尾則首至擊其中則首尾俱至

The skilful tactician may be likened to the shuai-jan. Now the shuai-jan is a snake that is found in the Ch‘ang mountains.

率然 means “suddenly” or “rapidly，” and the snake in question was doubtless so called owing to the rapidity of its movements. Through this passage， the term has now come to be used in the sense of “military manœuvres.” The 常山 have apparently not been identified.

{129}

Strike at its head， and you will be attacked by its tail; strike at its tail， and you will be attacked by its head; strike at its middle，

Another reading in the Yü Lan for 中 is 腹 “belly.”

and you will be attacked by head and tail both.

30. 敢問兵可使如率然乎曰可夫吳东谈主與越东谈主相惡也當其同舟而濟遇風其相救也如傍边手

Asked if an army can be made to imitate the shuai-jan，

That is， as Mei Yao-ch‘ên says， 可使兵首尾率然相應如一體乎 “Is it possible to make the front and rear of an army each swiftly responsive to attack on the other， just as though they were parts of a single living body?”

I should answer， Yes. For the men of Wu and the men of Yüeh are enemies;

Cf. VI. § 21.

yet if they are crossing a river in the same boat and are caught by a storm， they will come to each other’s assistance just as the left hand helps the right.

The meaning is: If two enemies will help each other in a time of common peril， how much more should two parts of the same army， bound together as they are by every tie of interest and fellow-feeling. Yet it is notorious that many a campaign has been ruined through lack of co-operation， especially in the case of allied armies.

31. 是故方馬埋輪未足恃也

Hence it is not enough to put one’s trust in the tethering of horses，

方 is said here to be equivalent to 縛.

and the burying of chariot wheels in the ground.

These quaint devices to prevent one’s army from running away recall the Athenian hero Sôphanes， who carried an anchor with him at the battle of Plataea， by means of which he fastened himself firmly to one spot. [See Herodotus， IX. 74.] It is not enough， says Sun Tzŭ， to render flight impossible by such mechanical means. You will not succeed unless{130} your men have tenacity and unity of purpose， and， above all， a spirit of sympathetic co-operation. This is the lesson which can be learned from the shuai-jan.

32. 齊勇若一政之谈也

The principle on which to manage an army is to set up one standard of courage which all must reach.

Literally， “level the courage [of all] as though [it were that of] one.” If the ideal army is to form a single organic whole， then it follows that the resolution and spirit of its component parts must be of the same quality， or at any rate must not fall below a certain standard. Wellington’s seemingly ungrateful description of his army at Waterloo as “the worst he had ever commanded” meant no more than that it was deficient in this important particular—unity of spirit and courage. Had he not foreseen the Belgian defections and carefully kept those troops in the background， he would almost certainly have lost the day.

33. 剛柔齐得地之理也

How to make the best of both strong and weak—that is a question involving the proper use of ground.

This is rather a hard sentence on the first reading， but the key to it will be found， firstly， in the pause after 得， and next， in the meaning of 得 itself. The best equivalent for this that I can think of is the German “zur Geltung kommen.” Mei Yao-ch‘ên’s paraphrase is: 兵無强弱齐得用者是因地之勢也 “The way to eliminate the differences of strong and weak and to make both serviceable is to utilise accidental features of the ground.” Less reliable troops， if posted in strong positions， will hold out as long as better troops on more exposed terrain. The advantage of position neutralises the inferiority in stamina and courage. Col. Henderson says: “With all respect to the text books， and to ordinary tactical teaching， I am inclined to think that the study of ground is often overlooked， and that by no means sufficient importance is attached to the selection of positions ... and to the immense advantages that are to be derived， whether you are defending or attacking， from the proper utilisation of natural features.”[180]

34. 故善用兵者攜手若使一东谈主不得已也

Thus the skilful general conducts his army just as though he were leading a single man， willy-nilly， by the hand.

{131}

Tu Mu says: 喩易也 “The simile has reference to the ease with which he does it.” 不得已 means that he makes it impossible for his troops to do otherwise than obey. Chang Yü quotes a jingle， to be found in Wu Tzŭ， ch. 4: 將之所揮，莫不從移，將之所指，莫不前死.

35. 將軍之事靜以幽正以治

It is the business of a general to be quiet and thus ensure secrecy; upright and just， and thus maintain order.

靜 seems to combine the meanings “noiseless” and “imperturbable，” both of which attributes would of course conduce to secrecy. Tu Mu explains 幽 as 幽邃難測 “deep and inscrutable，” and 正 as 平正無偏 “fair and unbiassed.” Mei Yao-ch‘ên alone among the commentators takes 治 in the sense of 自治 “self-controlled.” 幽 and 治 are causally connected with 靜 and 正 respectively. This is not brought out at all in Capt. Calthrop’s rendering: “The general should be calm， inscrutable， just and prudent.” The last adjective， moreover， can in no sense be said to represent 治.

36. 能愚士卒之耳目使之無知

He must be able to mystify his officers and men by false reports and appearances，

Literally， “to deceive their eyes and ears”—愚 being here used as a verb in the sense of 誤.

and thus keep them in total ignorance.

Ts‘ao Kung gives us one of his excellent apophthegms: 民可與樂成不可與慮始 “The troops must not be allowed to share your schemes in the beginning; they may only rejoice with you over their happy outcome.” “To mystify， mislead， and surprise the enemy，” is one of the first principles in war， as has been frequently pointed out. But how about the other process—the mystification of one’s own men? Those who may think that Sun Tzŭ is over-emphatic on this point would do well to read Col. Henderson’s remarks on Stonewall Jackson’s Valley campaign: “The infinite pains，” he says， “with which Jackson sought to conceal， even from his most trusted staff officers， his movements， his intentions， and his thoughts， a commander less thorough would have pronounced useless”—etc. etc.[181] In the year 88 A.D.， as we read in ch. 47{132} of the Hou Han Shu， “Pan Ch‘ao took the field with 25，000 men from Khotan and other Central Asian states with the object of crushing Yarkand. The King of Kutcha replied by dispatching his chief commander to succour the place with an army drawn from the kingdoms of Wên-su， Ku-mo and Wei-t‘ou， totalling 50，000 men. Pan Ch‘ao summoned his officers and also the King of Khotan to a council of war， and said: ‘Our forces are now outnumbered and unable to make head against the enemy. The best plan， then， is for us to separate and disperse， each in a different direction. The King of Khotan will march away by the easterly route， and I will then return myself towards the west. Let us wait until the evening drum has sounded and then start.’ Pan Ch‘ao now secretly released the prisoners whom he had taken alive， and the King of Kutcha was thus informed of his plans. Much elated by the news， the latter set off at once at the head of 10，000 horsemen to bar Pan Ch‘ao’s retreat in the west， while the King of Wên-su rode eastwards with 8000 horse in order to intercept the King of Khotan. As soon as Pan Ch‘ao knew that the two chieftains had gone， he called his divisions together， got them well in hand， and at cock-crow hurled them against the army of Yarkand， as it lay encamped. The barbarians， panic-stricken， fled in confusion， and were closely pursued by Pan Ch‘ao. Over 5000 heads were brought back as trophies， besides immense spoils in the shape of horses and cattle and valuables of every description. Yarkand then capitulating， Kutcha and the other kingdoms drew off their respective forces. From that time forward， Pan Ch‘ao’s prestige completely overawed the countries of the west.” In this case， we see that the Chinese general not only kept his own officers in ignorance of his real plans， but actually took the bold step of dividing his army in order to deceive the enemy.

37. 易其事革其謀使东谈主無識易其居迂其途使东谈主不得慮

By altering his arrangements and changing his plans，

Wang Hsi thinks that this means， not using the same stratagem twice. He says: 已行之事已施之謀當革易之不可再之.

he keeps the enemy without definite knowledge.

Note that 东谈主 denotes the enemy， as opposed to the 士卒 of § 36. Capt. Calthrop， not perceiving this， joins the two paragraphs into one. Chang Yü quotes 太白山东谈主 as saying: 兵貴詭谈者非止詭敵也抑詭我士卒使由而不使知之也 “The axiom， that war is based on deception， does not apply only to deception of the enemy. You must deceive even your own soldiers. Make them follow you， but without letting them know why.”

{133}

By shifting his camp and taking circuitous routes， he prevents the enemy from anticipating his purpose.

Wang Hsi paraphrases 易其居 as 處易者 “camp on easy ground，” and Chang Yü follows him， saying: 其居則去險而就易. But this is an utterly untenable view. For 迂其途， cf. VII. 4. Chia Lin， retaining his old interpretation of those words， is now obliged to explain 易其居 as “cause the enemy to shift his camp，” which is awkward in the extreme.

38. 帥與之期如登高而去其梯帥與之深切諸侯之地而發其機

At the critical moment， the leader of an army acts like one who has climbed up a height and then kicks away the ladder behind him.

I must candidly confess that I do not understand the syntax of 帥與之期， though the meaning is fairly plain. The difficulty has evidently been felt， for Tu Mu tells us that one text omits 期如. It is more likely， however， that a couple of characters have dropped out.

He carries his men deep into hostile territory before he shows his hand.

發其機， literally， “releases the spring” (see V. § 15)， that is， takes some decisive step which makes it impossible for the army to return—like 項羽 Hsiang Yü， who sunk his ships after crossing a river. Ch‘ên Hao， followed by Chia Lin， understands the words less well as 發其心機 “puts forth every artifice at his command.” But 機 in this derived sense occurs nowhere else in Sun Tzŭ.

39. 焚舟破釜若驅羣羊而往驅而來莫知所之

He burns his boats and breaks his cooking-pots;

Omitted in the T‘u Shu.

like a shepherd driving a flock of sheep， he drives his men this way and that， and none knows whither he is going.

The T‘u Shu inserts another 驅 after 羊. Tu Mu says: 三軍但知進退之命不知攻取之端也 “The army is only cognisant of orders to advance or retreat; it is ignorant of the ulterior ends of attacking and conquering.”

{134}

40. 聚三軍之衆投之於險此謂將軍之事也

To muster his host and bring it into danger:—this may be termed the business of the general.

Sun Tzŭ means that after mobilisation there should be no delay in aiming a blow at the enemy’s heart. With 投之於險 cf. supra， § 23: 投之無所往. Note how he returns again and again to this point. Among the warring states of ancient China， desertion was no doubt a much more present fear and serious evil than it is in the armies of to-day.

41. 九地之變屈伸之利情面之理不可不察也

The different measures suited to the nine varieties of ground;

Chang Yü says: 九地之法不可拘束 “One must not be hide-bound in interpreting the rules for the nine varieties of ground.

the expediency of aggressive or defensive tactics;

The use of 屈伸 “contraction and expansion” may be illustrated by the saying 屈以求伸， which almost exactly corresponds to the French “il faut reculer pour mieux sauter.”[182] Capt. Calthrop， more suo， avoids a real translation and has: “the suiting of the means to the occasion.”

and the fundamental laws of human nature: these are things that must most certainly be studied.

42. 凡爲客之谈深則專淺則散

When invading hostile territory， the general principle is， that penetrating deeply brings cohesion; penetrating but a short way means dispersion.

Cf. supra， § 20.

43. 去國逾境而師者絶地也四達者衢地也

When you leave your own country behind， and take your army across neighbouring territory，

Chang Yü’s paraphrase is 而用師者.

you find yourself on critical ground.

{135}

This “ground” is cursorily mentioned in VIII. § 2， but it does not figure among the Nine 地 of this chapter or the Six 地形 in chap. X. One’s first impulse would be to translate it “distant ground” (絶域 is commonly used in the sense of “distant lands”)， but this， if we can trust the commentators， is precisely what is not meant here. Mei Yao-ch‘ên says it is 進不足輕退不足散在二地之間也 “a position not far enough advanced to be called ‘facile，’ and not near enough to home to be called ‘dispersive，’ but something between the two.” That， of course， does not explain the name 絶， which seems to imply that the general has severed his communications and temporarily cut himself off from his base. Thus， Wang Hsi says: “It is ground separated from home by an interjacent state， whose territory we have had to cross in order to reach it. Hence it is incumbent on us to settle our business there quickly.” He adds that this position is of rare occurrence， which is the reason why it is not included among the 九地. Capt. Calthrop gives but a poor rendering of this sentence: “To leave home and cross the borders is to be free from interference.”

When there are means of communication

The T‘u Shu reads 通 for 達.

on all four sides， the ground is one of intersecting highways.

From 四達 down to the end of § 45， we have some of the definitions of the early part of the chapter repeated in slightly different language. Capt. Calthrop omits these altogether.

44. 入深者重地也入淺者輕地也

When you penetrate deeply into a country， it is serious ground. When you penetrate but a little way， it is facile ground.

45. 背固前隘者圍地也無所往者死地也

When you have the enemy’s strongholds on your rear，

固 = 險固.

and narrow passes in front， it is hemmed-in ground. When there is no place of refuge at all， it is desperate ground.

46. 是故散地吾將一其志輕地吾將使之屬

Therefore， on dispersive ground， I would inspire my men with unity of purpose.

{136}

This end， according to Tu Mu， is best attained by remaining on the defensive， and avoiding battle. Cf. supra， § 11.

On facile ground， I would see that there is close connection between all parts of my army.

The T‘ung Tien has 其 instead of 之. The present reading is supported by the 遺說 of Chêng Yu-hsien. As Tu Mu says， the object is to guard against two possible contingencies: 一者備其逃跑二者恐其敵至 “(1) the desertion of our own troops; (2) a sudden attack on the part of the enemy.” Cf. VII. § 17: 其徐如林. Mei Yao-ch‘ên says: 行則隊校相繼止則營壘聯屬 “On the march， the regiments should be in close touch; in an encampment， there should be continuity between the fortifications.” He seems to have forgotten， by the way， what Sun Tzŭ says above: 輕地則無止.

47. 爭地吾將趨其後

On contentious ground， I would hurry up my rear.

This is Ts‘ao Kung’s interpretation. Chang Yü adopts it， saying: 當疾進其後使首尾俱至 “We must quickly bring up our rear， so that head and tail may both reach the goal.” That is， they must not be allowed to straggle up a long way apart. Mei Yao-ch‘ên offers another equally plausible explanation: 敵未至其地我若在後則當疾趨以爭之 “Supposing the enemy has not yet reached the coveted position， and we are behind him， we should advance with all speed in order to dispute its possession.” 其 would thus denote the enemy， 後 being the preposition， and 趨 would retain its usual intransitive sense. Cf. VII. § 4: 後东谈主發先东谈主至. Ch‘ên Hao， on the other hand， assuming that the enemy has had time to select his own ground， quotes VI. § 1， where Sun Tzŭ warns us against coming exhausted to the attack. His own idea of the situation is rather vaguely expressed: 若地利在前先分精銳以據之彼若恃衆來爭我以大衆趨其後無不尅者 “If there is a favourable position lying in front of you， detach a picked body of troops to occupy it; then if the enemy， relying on their numbers， come up to make a fight for it， you may fall quickly on their rear with your main body， and victory will be assured.” It was thus， he adds， that Chao Shê beat the army of Ch‘in. [See p. 57.] Li Ch‘üan would read 多 for 趨， it is not easy to see why.

{137}

48. 交地吾將謹其守衢地吾將固其結

On open ground， I would keep a vigilant eye on my defences.

As Wang Hsi says， 懼襲我也 “fearing a surprise attack.” The T‘ung Tien reads here 固其結 (see next sentence).

On ground of intersecting highways， I would consolidate my alliances.

The T‘ung Tien reads 謹其市， which Tu Yu explains as “watching the market towns，” 變事之端 “the hotbeds of revolution.” Capt. Calthrop translates 固其結 by the same words as 合交 in § 12: “cultivate intercourse.”

49. 重地吾將繼其食圮地吾將進其塗

On serious ground， I would try to ensure a continuous stream of supplies.

The commentators take this as referring to forage and plunder， not， as one might expect， to an unbroken communication with a home base. One text， indeed， gives the reading 掠其食. Cf. § 13. Capt. Calthrop’s “be careful of supplies” fails to render the force of 繼.

On difficult ground， I would keep pushing on along the road.

Capt. Calthrop’s “do not linger” cannot be called a translation， but only a paraphrase of the paraphrase offered by Ts‘ao Kung: 疾過去也 “Pass away from it in all haste.”

50. 圍地吾將塞其闕死地吾將示之以不活

On hemmed-in ground， I would block any way of retreat.

意欲突圍示以守固 “To make it seem that I mean to defend the position， whereas my real intention is to burst suddenly through the enemy’s lines” [Mêng Shih]; 使士卒必死戰也 “in order to make my soldiers fight with desperation” [Mei Yao-ch‘ên]; 懼东谈主有走心 “fearing lest my men be tempted to run away” [Wang Hsi]. Tu Mu points out that this is the converse of VII. § 36， where it is the enemy who is surrounded. In 532 A.D.， 高歡 Kao Huan， afterwards Emperor and canonised as 神武 Shên-wu， was surrounded by a great{138} army under 爾朱兆 Êrh-chu Chao and others. His own force was comparatively small， consisting only of 2000 horse and something under 30，000 foot. The lines of investment had not been drawn very closely together， gaps being left at certain points. But Kao Huan， instead of trying to escape， actually made a shift to block all the remaining outlets himself by driving into them a number of oxen and donkeys roped together. As soon as his officers and men saw that there was nothing for it but to conquer or die， their spirits rose to an extraordinary pitch of exaltation， and they charged with such desperate ferocity that the opposing ranks broke and crumbled under their onslaught. [See Tu Mu’s commentary， and 北齊書 ch. 1， fol. 6.]

On desperate ground， I would proclaim to my soldiers the hopelessness of saving their lives.

Tu Yu says: 焚輜重棄糧食塞井夷竈示之無活必决死戰也 “Burn your baggage and impedimenta， throw away your stores and provisions， choke up the wells， destroy your cooking-stoves， and make it plain to your men that they cannot survive， but must fight to the death.” Mei Yao-ch‘ên says epigrammatically: 必死可生 “The only chance of life lies in giving up all hope of it.” This concludes what Sun Tzŭ has to say about “grounds” and the “variations” corresponding to them. Reviewing the passages which bear on this important subject， we cannot fail to be struck by the desultory and unmethodical fashion in which it is treated. Sun Tzŭ begins abruptly in VIII. § 2 to enumerate “variations” before touching on “grounds” at all， but only mentions five， namely nos. 7， 5， 8 and 9 of the subsequent list， and one that is not included in it. A few varieties of ground are dealt with in the earlier portion of chap. IX， and then chap. X sets forth six new grounds， with six variations of plan to match. None of these is mentioned again， though the first is hardly to be distinguished from ground no. 4 in the next chapter. At last， in chap. XI， we come to the Nine Grounds par excellence， immediately followed by the variations. This takes us down to § 14. In §§ 43–45， fresh definitions are provided for nos. 5， 6， 2， 8 and 9 (in the order given)， as well as for the tenth ground noticed in chap VIII; and finally， the nine variations are enumerated once more from beginning to end， all， with the exception of 5， 6 and 7， being different from those previously given. Though it is impossible to account for the present state of Sun Tzŭ’s text， a few suggestive facts may be brought into prominence: (1) Chap. VIII， according to the title， should deal with nine variations， whereas only five appear. (2) It is an abnormally short chapter. (3) Chap. XI is entitled The Nine Grounds. Several these are defined twice over， besides which there are two distinct lists of the corresponding variations. (4) The length of the chapter is disproportionate， being double that of any other except IX. I do not propose{139} to draw any inferences from these facts， beyond the general conclusion that Sun Tzŭ’s work cannot have come down to us in the shape in which it left his hands: chap. VIII is obviously defective and probably out of place， while XI seems to contain matter that has either been added by a later hand or ought to appear elsewhere.

51. 故兵之情圍則禦不得已則鬥過則從

For it is the soldier’s disposition to offer an obstinate resistance when surrounded， to fight hard when he cannot help himself， and to obey promptly when he has fallen into danger.

過則從 is rendered by Capt. Calthrop: “to pursue the enemy if he retreat.” But 過 cannot mean “to retreat.” Its primary sense is to pass over， hence to go too far， to exceed or to err. Here， however， the word has lost all implication of censure， and appears to mean “to pass the boundary line dividing safety from danger，” or， as Chang Yü puts it， 深陷于危難之地 “to be deeply involved in a perilous position.” The latter commentator alludes to the conduct of Pan Ch‘ao’s devoted followers in 73 A.D. The story runs thus in the Hou Han Shu， ch. 47， fol. 1 vo: “When Pan Ch‘ao arrived at 鄯善 Shan-shan， 廣 Kuang， the King of the country， received him at first with great politeness and respect; but shortly afterwards his behaviour underwent a sudden change， and he became remiss and negligent. Pan Ch‘ao spoke about this to the officers of his suite: ‘Have you not noticed，’ he said， ‘that Kuang’s polite intentions are on the wane? This must signify that envoys have come from the Northern barbarians， and that consequently he is in a state of indecision， not knowing with which side to throw in his lot. That surely is the reason. The truly wise man， we are told， can perceive things before they have come to pass; how much more， then， those that are already manifest!’ Thereupon he called one of the natives who had been assigned to his service， and set a trap for him， saying: ‘Where are those envoys from the Hsiung-nu who arrived some days ago?’ The man was so taken aback that between surprise and fear he presently blurted out the whole truth. Pan Ch‘ao， keeping his informant carefully under lock and key， then summoned a general gathering of his officers， thirty-six in all， and began drinking with them. When the wine had mounted into their heads a little， he tried to rouse their spirit still further by addressing them thus: ‘Gentlemen， here we are in the heart of an isolated region， anxious to achieve riches and honour by some great exploit. Now it happens that an ambassador from the Hsiung-nu arrived in this kingdom only a few days ago， and the result is that the respectful courtesy extended towards us by our royal host has disappeared. Should this envoy prevail upon him to seize our party and hand us over to the Hsiung-nu，{140} our bones will become food for the wolves of the desert. What are we to do?’ With one accord， the officers replied: ‘Standing as we do in peril of our lives， we will follow our commander through life and death’ (今在危一火之地死生從司馬).” For the sequel of this adventure， see chap. XII. § 1， note.

52. 是故不知諸侯之謀者不行預交不知山林險阻沮澤之形者不行行軍不必鄉導者不行得地利

We cannot enter into alliance with neighbouring princes until we are acquainted with their designs. We are not fit to lead an army on the march unless we are familiar with the face of the country—its mountains and forests， its pitfalls and precipices， its marshes and swamps. We shall be unable to turn natural advantages to account unless we make use of local guides.

These three sentences are repeated from VII. §§ 12–14—in order to emphasise their importance， the commentators seem to think. I prefer to regard them as interpolated here in order to form an antecedent to the following words. With regard to local guides， Sun Tzŭ might have added that there is always the risk of going wrong， either through their treachery or some misunderstanding such as Livy records (XXII. 13): Hannibal， we are told， ordered a guide to lead him into the neighbourhood of Casinum， where there was an important pass to be occupied; but his Carthaginian accent， unsuited to the pronunciation of Latin names， caused the guide to understand Casilinum instead of Casinum， and turning from his proper route， he took the army in that direction， the mistake not being discovered until they had almost arrived.

53. 四五者不知一非霸王之兵也

To be ignorant of any one of the following four or five principles

Referring， I think， to what is contained in §§ 54， 55. Ts‘ao Kung， thinking perhaps of the 五利 in VIII. § 6， takes them to be 九地之历害 “the advantages and disadvantages attendant on the nine varieties of ground.” The T‘u Shu reads 此五者.

does not befit a warlike prince.

霸王， “one who rules by force，” was a term specially used for those princes who established their hegemony over other feudal states. The{141} famous 五霸 of the 7th century B.C. were (1) 齊桓公 Duke Huan of Ch‘i， (2) 晉文公 Duke Wên of Chin， (3) 宋襄公 Duke Hsiang of Sung， (4) 楚莊王 Prince Chuang of Ch‘u， (5) 秦穆公 Duke Mu of Ch‘in. Their reigns covered the period 685–591 B.C.

54. 夫霸王之兵伐大國則其衆不得聚威加於敵則其交不得合

When a warlike prince attacks a powerful state， his generalship shows itself in preventing the concentration of the enemy’s forces. He overawes his opponents，

Here and in the next sentence， the Yü Lan inserts 家 after 敵.

and their allies are prevented from joining against him.

91porn地址

Mei Yao-ch‘ên constructs one of the chains of reasoning that are so much affected by the Chinese: “In attacking a powerful state， if you can divide her forces， you will have a superiority in strength; if you have a superiority in strength， you will overawe the enemy; if you overawe the enemy， the neighbouring states will be frightened; and if the neighbouring states are frightened， the enemy’s allies will be prevented from joining her.” The following gives a stronger meaning to 威加: 若大國一敗則小國離而不聚矣 “If the great state has once been defeated (before she has had time to summon her allies)， then the lesser states will hold aloof and refrain from massing their forces.” Ch‘ên Hao and Chang Yü take the sentence in quite another way. The former says: “Powerful though a prince may be， if he attacks a large state， he will be unable to raise enough troops， and must rely to some extent on external aid; if he dispenses with this， and with overweening confidence in his own strength， simply tries to intimidate the enemy， he will surely be defeated.” Chang Yü puts his view thus: “If we recklessly attack a large state， our own people will be discontented and hang back. But if (as will then be the case) our display of military force is inferior by half to that of the enemy， the other chieftains will take fright and refuse to join us.” According to this interpretation， 其 would refer， not to the 大國， but to the 霸王 himself.

55. 是故不爭六合之交不養六合之權信己之私威加於敵故其城可拔其國可隳

Hence he does not strive

For 爭 the Yü Lan reads 事.

{142}

to ally himself with all and sundry，

六合， as in § 6， stands for 諸侯 “the feudal princes，” or the states ruled by them.

nor does he foster the power of other states. He carries out his own secret designs，

For 信 (read shên1) in the meaning of 伸， cf. VIII. § 8. The commentators are unanimous on this point， and we must therefore beware of translating 信己之私 by “secretly self-confident” or the like. Capt. Calthrop (omitting 之私) has: “he has confidence in himself.”

keeping his antagonists in awe.

The train of thought appears to be this: Secure against a combination of his enemies， 能絶六合之交惟得伸己之私志威而無社交者 “he can afford to reject entangling alliances and simply pursue his own secret designs， his prestige enabling him to dispense with external friendships.” (Li Ch‘üan.)

Thus he is able to capture their cities and overthrow their kingdoms.

This paragraph， though written many years before the Ch‘in State became a serious menace， is not a bad summary of the policy by which the famous Six Chancellors gradually paved the way for her final triumph under Shih Huang Ti. Chang Yü， following up his previous note， thinks that Sun Tzŭ is condemning this attitude of cold-blooded selfishness and haughty isolation. He again refers 其 to the warlike prince， thus making it appear that in the end he is bound to succumb.

56. 施無法之賞懸無政之令犯三軍之衆若使一东谈主

Bestow rewards without regard to rule，

Wu Tzŭ (ch. 3) less wisely says: 進有重賞退有重刑 “Let advance be richly rewarded and retreat be heavily punished.”

issue orders

懸， literally， “hang” or “post up.”

without regard to previous arrangements;

杜姦媮 “In order to prevent treachery，” says Wang Hsi. The general meaning is made clear by Ts‘ao Kung’s quotation from the{143} Ssŭ-ma Fa: 見敵作誓瞻功作賞 “Give instructions only on sighting the enemy; give rewards only when you see deserving deeds.” 無政， however， presents some difficulty. Ts‘ao Kung’s paraphrase， 軍王法不應預施懸也， I take to mean: “The final instructions you give to your army should not correspond with those that have been previously posted up.” Chang Yü simplifies this into 政不預告 “your arrangements should not be divulged beforehand.” And Chia Lin says: 不守常法常政 “there should be no fixity in your rules and arrangements.” Not only is there danger in letting your plans be known， but war often necessitates the entire reversal of them at the last moment.

and you will be able to handle a whole army

犯， according to Ts‘ao Kung， is here equal to 用. The exact meaning is brought out more clearly in the next paragraph.

as though you had to do with but a single man.

Cf. supra， § 34.

57. 犯之以事勿告以言犯之以利勿告以害

Confront your soldiers with the deed itself; never let them know your design.

Literally， “do not tell them words;” i.e. do not give your reasons for any order. Lord Mansfield once told a junior colleague to “give no reasons” for his decisions， and the maxim is even more applicable to a general than to a judge. Capt. Calthrop translates this sentence with beautiful simplicity: “Orders should direct the soldiers.” That is all.

When the outlook is bright， bring it before their eyes; but tell them nothing when the situation is gloomy.

58. 投之一火地然後存陷之死地然後生

Place your army in deadly peril， and it will survive; plunge it into desperate straits， and it will come off in safety.

Compare the paradoxical saying 一火者存之基死者生之本. These words of Sun Tzŭ were once quoted by Han Hsin in explanation of the tactics he employed in one of his most brilliant battles， already alluded to on p. 28， In 204 B.C.， he was sent against the army of Chao， and halted ten miles from the mouth of the 井陘 Ching-hsing pass， where the enemy had mustered in full force. Here， at midnight， he detached a body of 2000 light cavalry， every man of which was furnished{144} with a red flag. Their instructions were to make their way through narrow defiles and keep a secret watch on the enemy. “When the men of Chao see me in full flight，” Han Hsin said， “they will abandon their fortifications and give chase. This must be the sign for you to rush in， pluck down the Chao standards and set up the red banners of 漢 Han in their stead.” Turning then to his other officers， he remarked: “Our adversary holds a strong position， and is not likely to come out and attack us until he sees the standard and drums of the commander-in-chief， for fear I should turn back and escape through the mountains.” So saying， he first of all sent out a division consisting of 10，000 men， and ordered them to form in line of battle with their backs to the River 泜 Ti. Seeing this manœuvre， the whole army of Chao broke into loud laughter. By this time it was broad daylight， and Han Hsin， displaying the generalissimo’s flag， marched out of the pass with drums beating， and was immediately engaged by the enemy. A great battle followed， lasting for some time; until at length Han Hsin and his colleague 張耳 Chang Ni， leaving drums and banner on the field， fled to the division on the river bank， where another fierce battle was raging. The enemy rushed out to pursue them and to secure the trophies， thus denuding their ramparts of men; but the two generals succeeded in joining the other army， which was fighting with the utmost desperation. The time had now come for the 2000 horsemen to play their part. As soon as they saw the men of Chao following up their advantage， they galloped behind the deserted walls， tore up the enemy’s flags and replaced them by those of Han. When the Chao army turned back from the pursuit， the sight of these red flags struck them with terror. Convinced that the Hans had got in and overpowered their king， they broke up in wild disorder， every effort of their leader to stay the panic being in vain. Then the Han army fell on them from both sides and completed the rout， killing a great number and capturing the rest， amongst whom was King 歇 Ya himself.... After the battle， some of Han Hsin’s officers came to him and said: “In the Art of War we are told to have a hill or tumulus on the right rear， and a river or marsh on the left front. [This appears to be a blend of Sun Tzŭ and T‘ai Kung. See IX. § 9， and note.] You， on the contrary， ordered us to draw up our troops with the river at our back. Under these conditions， how did you manage to gain the victory?” The general replied: “I fear you gentlemen have not studied the Art of War with sufficient care. Is it not written there: ‘Plunge your army into desperate straits and it will come off in safety; place it in deadly peril and it will survive’? Had I taken the usual course， I should never have been able to bring my colleagues round. What says the Military Classic (經)?—‘Swoop down on the market-place and drive the men off to fight’ (毆市东谈主而戰之). [This passage does not occur in the present text of Sun Tzŭ.] If I had not placed my troops in a position where{145} they were obliged to fight for their lives， but had allowed each man to follow his own discretion， there would have been a general débandade， and it would have been impossible to do anything with them.” The officers admitted the force of his argument， and said: “These are higher tactics than we should have been capable of.” [See Ch‘ien Han Shu， ch. 34， ff. 4， 5.]

59. 夫衆陷於害然後能爲勝敗

For it is precisely when a force has fallen into harm’s way that it is capable of striking a blow for victory.

Danger has a bracing effect.

60. 故爲兵之事在於順詳敵之意

Success in warfare is gained by carefully accommodating ourselves to the enemy’s purpose.

Ts‘ao Kung says: 佯愚也 “Feign stupidity”—by an appearance of yielding and falling in with the enemy’s wishes. Chang Yü’s note makes the meaning clear: “If the enemy shows an inclination to advance， lure him on to do so; if he is anxious to retreat， delay on purpose that he may carry out his intention.” The object is to make him remiss and contemptuous before we deliver our attack.

61. 并敵一向沉殺將

By persistently hanging on the enemy’s flank，

I understand the first four words to mean “accompanying the enemy in one direction.” Ts‘ao Kung says: 幷兵向敵 “unite the soldiers and make for the enemy.” But such a violent displacement of characters is quite indefensible. Mei Yao-ch‘ên is the only commentator who seems to have grasped the meaning: 隨敵一向然後發伏特地. The T‘u Shu reads 并力.

we shall succeed in the long run

Literally， “after a thousand li.”

in killing the commander-in-chief.

Always a great point with the Chinese.

62. 此謂巧能成事者也

This is called ability to accomplish a thing by sheer cunning.

The T‘u Shu has 是謂巧於成事， and yet another reading，{146} mentioned by Ts‘ao Kung， is 巧攻成事. Capt. Calthrop omits this sentence， after having thus translated the two preceding: “Discover the enemy’s intentions by conforming to his movements. When these are discovered， then， with one stroke， the general may be killed， even though he be one hundred leagues distant.”

63. 是故政舉之日夷關折符無通其使

On the day that you take up your command，

政舉 does not mean “when war is declared，” as Capt. Calthrop says， nor yet exactly， as Ts‘ao Kung paraphrases it， 謀定 “when your plans are fixed，” when you have mapped out your campaign. The phrase is not given in the P‘ei Wên Yün Fu. There being no causal connection discoverable between this and the preceding sentence， 是故 must perforce be left untranslated.

block the frontier passes，

夷 is explained by Mei Yao-ch‘ên as 滅塞.

destroy the official tallies，

The locus classicus for these tallies is Chou Li， XIV. fol. 40 (Imperial edition): 門關用符節貨賄用璽節谈路用旌節. The generic term thus appears to be 節， 符 being the special kind used at city-gates and on the frontier. They were tablets of bamboo or wood， one half of which was issued as a permit or passport by the official in charge of a gate (司門 or 司關. Cf. the 封东谈主 “border-warden” of Lun Yü III. 24， who may have had similar duties.) When this half was returned to him， within a fixed period， he was authorised to open the gate and let the traveller through.

and stop the passage of all emissaries.

Either to or from the enemy’s country.

64. 厲於廊廟之上以誅其事

Be stern in the council-chamber，

Show no weakness， and insist on your plans being ratified by the sovereign. 廊廟 indicates a hall or temple in the Palace. Cf. I. § 26. It is not clear if other officers would be present. Hardly anything can be made of 勵， the reading of the standard text， so I have adopted Tu Mu’s conjecture 厲， which appears in the T‘u Shu.

so that you may control the situation.

{147}

Ts‘ao Kung explains 誅 by 治， and Ho Shih by 責成. Another reading is 謀， and Mei Yao-ch‘ên， adopting this， understands the whole sentence to mean: Take the strictest precautions to ensure secrecy in your deliberations. Capt. Calthrop glides rather too smoothly over the rough places. His translation is: “conduct the business of the government with vigilance.”

65. 敵东谈主開闔必亟入之

If the enemy leaves a door open， you must rush in.

This looks a very simple sentence， yet Ts‘ao Kung is the only commentator who takes it as I have done. Mêng Shih， followed by Mei Yao-ch‘ên and Chang Yü， defines 開闔 as 間者 “spies，” and makes 入 an active verb: “If spies come from the enemy， we must quickly let them in.” But I cannot find that the words 開闔 have this meaning anywhere else. On the other hand， they may be taken as two verbs， 或開或闔， expressing the enemy’s indecision whether to advance or retreat， that being the best moment to attack him. [Cf. Tao Tê Ching， chap. X: 天門開闔能爲雌乎; also Li Chi， 曲禮， I. ii. 25.] It is not easy to choose between this and Ts‘ao Kung’s explanation; the fact that 敵东谈主開戶 occurs shortly afterwards， in § 68， might be adduced in support of either. 必 must be understood in the sense of 宜 or 當. The only way to avoid this is to put 開闔 between commas and translate: “If we leave a door open， the enemy is sure to rush in.”

66. 先其所愛微與之期

Forestall your opponent by seizing what he holds dear，

Cf. supra， § 18.

and subtly contrive to time his arrival on the ground.

Capt. Calthrop hardly attempts to translate this difficult paragraph， but invents the following instead: “Discover what he most values， and plan to seize it.” Ch‘ên Hao’s explanation， however， is clear enough: 我若先奪便地而敵不至雖有其利亦奚用之是以欲取其愛惜之處必先微與敵东谈主相期誤之使必至 “If I manage to seize a favourable position， but the enemy does not appear on the scene， the advantage thus obtained cannot be turned to any practical account. He who intends， therefore， to occupy a position of importance to the enemy， must begin by making an artful appointment，{148} so to speak， with his antagonist， and cajole him into going there as well.” Mei Yao-ch‘ên explains that this “artful appointment” is to be made through the medium of the enemy’s own spies， who will carry back just the amount of information that we choose to give them. Then， having cunningly disclosed our intentions， 我後东谈主發先东谈主至 “we must manage， though starting after the enemy， to arrive before him” (VII. § 4). We must start after him in order to ensure his marching thither; we must arrive before him in order to capture the place without trouble. Taken thus， the present passage lends some support to Mei Yao-ch‘ên’s interpretation of § 47.

67. 踐墨隨敵以決戰事

Walk in the path defined by rule，

墨 stands for 繩墨 “a marking-line，” hence a rule of conduct. See Mencius VII. 1. xli. 2. Ts‘ao Kung explains it by the similar metaphor 規矩 “square and compasses.” The baldness of the sentiment rather inclines me to favour the reading 剗 adopted by Chia Lin in place of 踐， which yields an exactly opposite sense， namely: “Discard hard and fast rules.” Chia Lin says: 惟勝是利不可守以繩墨而爲 “Victory is the only thing that matters， and this cannot be achieved by adhering to conventional canons.” It is unfortunate that this variant rests on very slight authority， for the sense yielded is certainly much more satisfactory. Napoleon， as we know， according to the veterans of the old school whom he defeated， won his battles by violating every accepted canon of warfare.

and accommodate yourself to the enemy until you can fight a decisive battle.

The last four words of the Chinese are omitted by Capt. Calthrop. Tu Mu says: 隨敵东谈主之形若有可乘之勢則出而決戰 “Conform to the enemy’s tactics until a favourable opportunity offers; then come forth and engage in a battle that shall prove decisive.”

68. 是故始如處女敵东谈主開戶後如脫兎敵不足拒

At first， then， exhibit the coyness of a maiden， until the enemy gives you an opening; afterwards emulate the rapidity of a running hare， and it will be too late for the enemy to oppose you.

{149}

As the hare is noted for its extreme timidity， the comparison hardly appears felicitous. But of course Sun Tzŭ was thinking only of its speed. The words have been taken to mean: You must flee from the enemy as quickly as an escaping hare; but this is rightly rejected by Tu Mu. Capt. Calthrop is wrong in translating 兎 “rabbit.” Rabbits are not indigenous to China， and were certainly not known there in the 6th century B.C. The last sixteen characters evidently form a sort of four-line jingle. Chap. X， it may be remembered， closed in similar fashion.

Rather more than half the chapter (§§ 1–13) is devoted to the subject of fire， after which the author branches off into other topics.

1. 孫子曰凡火攻有五一曰火东谈主二曰火積三曰火輜四曰火庫五曰火隊

Sun Tzŭ said: There are five ways of attacking with fire. The first is to burn soldiers in their camp;

So Tu Mu. Li Ch‘üan says: 焚其營殺其士卒也 “Set fire to the camp， and kill the soldiers” (when they try to escape from the flames). Pan Ch‘ao， sent on a diplomatic mission to the King of Shan-shan [see XI. § 51， note]， found himself placed in extreme peril by the unexpected arrival of an envoy from the Hsiung-nu [the mortal enemies of the Chinese]. In consultation with his officers， he exclaimed: “‘Never venture， never win![183] The only course open to us now is to make an assault by fire on the barbarians under cover of night， when they will not be able to discern our numbers. Profiting by their panic， we shall exterminate them completely; this will cool the King’s courage and cover us with glory， besides ensuring the success of our mission.’ The officers all replied that it would be necessary to discuss the matter first with the Intendant (從事). Pan Ch‘ao then fell into a passion: ‘It is to-day，’ he cried， ‘that our fortunes must be decided! The Intendant is only a humdrum civilian， who on hearing of our project will certainly be afraid， and everything will be brought to light. An inglorious death is no worthy fate for valiant warriors.’ All then agreed to do as he wished. Accordingly， as soon as night came on， he and his little band quickly made their way to the barbarian camp. A strong gale was blowing at the time. Pan Ch‘ao ordered ten of the party to take drums and hide behind the enemy’s barracks， it being arranged that when they saw flames shoot up， they{151} should begin drumming and yelling with all their might. The rest of his men， armed with bows and crossbows， he posted in ambuscade at the gate of the camp. He then set fire to the place from the windward side， whereupon a deafening noise of drums and shouting arose on the front and rear of the Hsiung-nu， who rushed out pell-mell in frantic disorder. Pan Ch‘ao slew three of them with his own hand， while his companions cut off the heads of the envoy and thirty of his suite. The remainder， more than a hundred in all， perished in the flames. On the following day， Pan Ch‘ao went back and informed 郭恂 Kuo Hsün [the Intendant] of what he had done. The latter was greatly alarmed and turned pale. But Pan Ch‘ao， divining his thoughts， said with uplifted hand: ‘Although you did not go with us last night， I should not think， Sir， of taking sole credit for our exploit.’ This satisfied Kuo Hsün， and Pan Ch‘ao， having sent for Kuang， King of Shan-shan， showed him the head of the barbarian envoy. The whole kingdom was seized with fear and trembling， which Pan Ch‘ao took steps to allay by issuing a public proclamation. Then， taking the king’s son as hostage， he returned to make his report to 竇固 Tou Ku.” [Hou Han Shu， ch. 47， ff. 1， 2.]

the second is to burn stores;

Tu Mu says: 糧食薪芻 “Provisions， fuel and fodder.” In order to subdue the rebellious population of Kiangnan， 高潁 Kao Kêng recommended Wên Ti of the Sui dynasty to make periodical raids and burn their stores of grain， a policy which in the long run proved entirely successful. [隋書， ch. 41， fol. 2.]

the third is to burn baggage-trains;

An example given is the destruction of 袁紹 Yüan Shao’s waggons and impedimenta by Ts‘ao Ts‘ao in 200 A.D.

the fourth is to burn arsenals and magazines;

Tu Mu says that the things contained in 輜 and 庫 are the same. He specifies weapons and other implements， bullion and clothing. Cf. VII. § 11.

the fifth is to hurl dropping fire amongst the enemy.

No fewer than four totally diverse explanations of this sentence are given by the commentators， not one of which is quite satisfactory. It is obvious， at any rate， that the ordinary meaning of 隊 (“regiment” or “company”) is here inadmissible. In spite of Tu Mu’s note， 焚其行伍因亂而擊之， I must regard “company burning” (Capt. Calthrop’s rendering) as nonsense pure and simple. We may also， I think， reject the very forced explanation given by Li Ch‘üan， Mei Yao-ch‘ên{152} and Chang Yü， of whom the last-named says: 焚其隊仗使兵無戰具 “burning a regiment’s weapons， so that the soldiers may have nothing to fight with.” That leaves only two solutions open: one， favoured by Chia Lin and Ho Shih， is to take 隊 in the somewhat uncommon sense of “a road，” = 隧. The commentary on a passage in the 穆皇帝傳， quoted in K‘ang Hsi， defines 隊 (read sui) as 谷中險阻谈 “a difficult road leading through a valley.” Here it would stand for the 糧谈 “line of supplies，” which might be effectually interrupted if the country roundabout was laid waste with fire. Finally， the interpretation which I have adopted is that given by Tu Yu in the T‘ung Tien. He reads 墜 (which is not absolutely necessary， 隊 chui being sometimes used in the same sense)， with the following note: 以火墮敵營中也火墜之法以鐵籠火着箭頭頸强弩射敵營中 “To drop fire into the enemy’s camp. The method by which this may be done is to set the tips of arrows alight by dipping them into a brazier， and then shoot them from powerful crossbows into the enemy’s lines.”

2. 行火必有因煙火必素具

In order to carry out an attack with fire， we must have means available;

Ts‘ao Kung thinks that 姦东谈主 “traitors in the enemy’s camp” are referred to. He thus takes 因 as the efficient cause only. But Ch‘ên Hao is more likely to be right in saying: 須得其便不獨姦东谈主 “We must have favourable circumstances in general， not merely traitors to help us.” Chia Lin says: 因風燥 “We must avail ourselves of wind and dry weather.”

The material for raising fire should always be kept in readiness.

煙火 is explained by Ts‘ao Kung as 燒具 “appliances for making fire.” Tu Mu suggests 艾蒿荻葦薪芻膏油之屬 “dry vegetable matter， reeds， brushwood， straw， grease， oil， etc.” Here we have the material cause. Chang Yü says: 𫎓火之器燃火之物 “vessels for hoarding fire， stuff for lighting fires.”

3. 發火有時动怒有日

There is a proper season for making attacks with fire， and special days for starting a conflagration.

{153}

A fire must not be begun 妄 “recklessly” or 随机 “at haphazard.”

4. 時者天之燥也日者宿在箕壁翼軫也凡此四宿者風起之日也

The proper season is when the weather is very dry; the special days are those when the moon is in the constellations of the Sieve， the Wall， the Wing or the Cross-bar;

These are， respectively， the 7th， 14th， 27th， and 28th of the 二十八宮 Twenty-eight Stellar Mansions， corresponding roughly to Sagittarius， Pegasus， Crater and Corvus. The original text， followed by the T‘u Shu， has 月 in place of 宿; the present reading rests on the authority of the T‘ung Tien and Yü Lan. Tu Mu says: 宿者月之所宿也. For 箕壁， both T‘ung Tien and Yü Lan give the more precise location 戊箕東壁. Mei Yao-ch‘ên tells us that by 箕 is meant the tail of the 龍 Dragon; by 壁， the eastern part of that constellation; by 翼 and 軫， the tail of the 鶉 Quail.

for these four are all days of rising wind.

此四宿者 is elliptical for 月在此四宿之日. 蕭繹 Hsiao I (afterwards fourth Emperor of the Liang dynasty， A.D. 552–555) is quoted by Tu Yu as saying that the days 丙丁 of spring， 戊已 of summer， 壬癸 of autumn， and 甲乙 of winter bring fierce gales of wind and rain.

5. 凡火攻必因五火之變而應之

In attacking with fire， one should be prepared to meet five possible developments:

I take 五 as qualifying 變， not 火， and therefore think that Chang Yü is wrong in referring 五火 to the five methods of attack set forth in § 1. What follows has certainly nothing to do with these.

6. 火發於內則早應之於外

(1) When fire breaks out inside the enemy’s camp， respond at once

The Yü Lan incorrectly reads 軍 for 早.

with an attack from without.

{154}

7. 火發而其兵靜者待而勿攻

(2) If there is an outbreak of fire， but the enemy’s soldiers remain quiet， bide your time and do not attack.

The original text omits 而其. The prime object of attacking with fire is to throw the enemy into confusion. If this effect is not produced， it means that the enemy is ready to receive us. Hence the necessity for caution.

8. 極其火力可從而從之不可從而止

(3) When the force of the flames has reached its height， follow it up with an attack， if that is practicable; if not， stay where you are.

Ts‘ao Kung says: 見可而進知難而退 “If you see a possible way， advance; but if you find the difficulties too great， retire.”

9. 火可發於外無待於內以時發之

(4) If it is possible to make an assault with fire from without， do not wait for it to break out within， but deliver your attack at a favourable moment.

Tu Mu says that the previous paragraphs had reference to the fire breaking out (either accidentally， we may suppose， or by the agency of incendiaries) inside the enemy’s camp. “But，” he continues， 若敵居荒澤草穢或營栅可焚之地卽須及時發火不必更待內發作然後應之恐敵东谈主自燒野草我动怒無益 “if the enemy is settled in a waste place littered with quantities of grass， or if he has pitched his camp in a position which can be burnt out， we must carry our fire against him at any seasonable opportunity， and not wait on in hopes of an outbreak occurring within， for fear our opponents should themselves burn up the surrounding vegetation， and thus render our own attempts fruitless.” The famous 李陵 Li Ling once baffled the 單于 leader of the Hsiung-nu in this way. The latter， taking advantage of a favourable wind， tried to set fire to the Chinese general’s camp， but found that every scrap of combustible vegetation in the neighbourhood had already been burnt down. On the other hand， 波才 Po-ts‘ai， a general of the 黃巾賊 Yellow Turban rebels， was badly defeated in 184 A.D. through his neglect of this simple precaution. “At the head of a large army he was besieging 長社 Ch‘ang-shê， which was held by 皇甫嵩 Huang-fu Sung. The garrison was very{155} small， and a general feeling of nervousness pervaded the ranks; so Huang-fu Sung called his officers together and said: ‘In war， there are various indirect methods of attack， and numbers do not count for everything. [The commentator here quotes Sun Tzŭ， V. §§ 5， 6 and 10.] Now the rebels have pitched their camp in the midst of thick grass (依草結營)， which will easily burn when the wind blows. If we set fire to it at night， they will be thrown into a panic， and we can make a sortie and attack them on all sides at once， thus emulating the achievement of T‘ien Tan.’ [See p. 90.] That same evening， a strong breeze sprang up; so Huang-fu Sung instructed his soldiers to bind reeds together into torches and mount guard on the city walls， after which he sent out a band of daring men， who stealthily made their way through the lines and started the fire with loud shouts and yells. Simultaneously， a glare of light shot up from the city-walls， and Huang-fu Sung， sounding his drums， led a rapid charge， which threw the rebels into confusion and put them to headlong flight.” [Hou Han Shu， ch. 71， f. 2 ro.]

10. 火發上風無攻下風

(5) When you start a fire， be to windward of it. Do not attack from the leeward.

Chang Yü， following Tu Yu， says: 燒之必退退而逆擊之必死戰則未便也 “When you make a fire， the enemy will retreat away from it; if you oppose his retreat and attack him then， he will fight desperately， which will not conduce to your success.” A rather more obvious explanation is given by Tu Mu: “If the wind is in the east， begin burning to the east of the enemy， and follow up the attack yourself from that side. If you start the fire on the east side， and then attack from the west， you will suffer in the same way as your enemy.”

11. 晝風久夜風止

A wind that rises in the daytime lasts long， but a night breeze soon falls.

Cf. Lao Tzŭ’s saying: 飄風不終朝 “A violent wind does not last the space of a morning.” (Tao Tê Ching， chap. 23.) Mei Yao-ch‘ên and Wang Hsi say: “A day breeze dies down at nightfall， and a night breeze at daybreak. This is what happens as a general rule.” The phenomenon observed may be correct enough， but how this sense is to be obtained is not apparent.

12. 凡軍必知有五火之變以數守之

In every army， the five developments connected with fire must be known， the movements of the stars calculated， and a watch kept for the proper days.

{156}

Tu Mu’s commentary shows what has to be supplied in order to make sense out of 以數守之. He says: 須筭星𨇠之數守風起之日乃可發火 “We must make calculations as to the paths of the stars， and watch for the days on which wind will rise， before making our attack with fire.” Chang Yü seems to take 守 in the sense of 防: “We must not only know how to assail our opponents with fire， but also be on our guard against similar attacks from them.”

13. 故以火佐攻者明以水佐攻者强

Hence those who use fire as an aid to the attack show intelligence;

I have not the least hesitation in rejecting the commentators’ explanation of 明 as = 昭彰. Thus Chang Yü says: 灼然不错取勝 “... will clearly [i.e. obviously] be able to gain the victory.” This is not only clumsy in itself， but does not balance 强 in the next clause. For 明 “intelligent，” cf. infra， § 16， and Lun Yü XII. 6.

those who use water as an aid to the attack gain an accession of strength.

Capt. Calthrop gives an extraordinary rendering of the paragraph: “... if the attack is to be assisted， the fire must be unquenchable. If water is to assist the attack， the flood must be overwhelming.”

14. 水不错絶不不错奪

By means of water， an enemy may be intercepted， but not robbed of all his belongings.

Ts‘ao Kung’s note is: 但不错絶敵谈分敵軍不不错奪敵蓄積 “We can merely obstruct the enemy’s road or divide his army， but not sweep away all his accumulated stores.” Water can do useful service， but it lacks the terrible destructive power of fire. This is the reason， Chang Yü concludes， why the former is dismissed in a couple of sentences， whereas the attack by fire is discussed in detail. Wu Tzŭ (ch. 4) speaks thus of the two elements: 居軍下濕水無所通霖雨數至可灌而沉居軍荒澤草楚幽穢風飆數至可焚而滅 “If an army is encamped on low-lying marshy ground， from which the water cannot run off， and where the rainfall is heavy， it may be submerged by a flood. If an army is encamped in wild marsh lands thickly overgrown with weeds and brambles， and visited by frequent gales， it may be exterminated by fire.”

{157}

15. 夫戰勝攻取而不修其功者凶命曰費留

Unhappy is the fate of one who tries to win his battles and succeed in his attacks without cultivating the spirit of enterprise; for the result is waste of time and general stagnation.

This is one of the most perplexing passages in Sun Tzŭ. The difficulty lies mainly in 不修其功， of which two interpretations appear possible. Most of the commentators understand 修 in the sense (not known to K‘ang Hsi) of 賞 “reward” or 舉 “promote，” and 其功 as referring to the merit of officers and men. Thus Ts‘ao Kung says: 賞善不踰日 “Rewards for good service should not be deferred a single day.” And Tu Mu: “If you do not take opportunity to advance and reward the deserving， your subordinates will not carry out your commands， and disaster will ensue.” 費留 would then probably mean 留滯費耗 “stoppage of expenditure，” or as Chia Lin puts it， 惜費 “the grudging of expenditure.” For several reasons， however， and in spite of the formidable array of scholars on the other side， I prefer the interpretation suggested by Mei Yao-ch‘ên alone， whose words I will quote: 欲戰必勝攻必取者在因時乘便能作爲功也作爲功者修火攻水攻之類不可坐守其利也坐守其利者凶也 “Those who want to make sure of succeeding in their battles and assaults must seize the favourable moments when they come and not shrink on occasion from heroic measures: that is to say， they must resort to such means of attack as fire， water and the like. What they must not do， and what will prove fatal， is to sit still and simply hold on to the advantages they have got.” This retains the more usual meaning of 修， and also brings out a clear connection of thought with the previous part of the chapter. With regard to 費留， Wang Hsi paraphrases it as 費財老師 “expending treasure and tiring out [lit.， ageing] the army.” 費 of course is expenditure or waste in general， either of time， money or strength. But the soldier is less concerned with the saving of money than of time. For the metaphor expressed in “stagnation” I am indebted to Ts‘ao Kung， who says: 若水之留不復還也. Capt. Calthrop gives a rendering which bears but little relation to the Chinese text: “unless victory or possession be obtained， the enemy quickly recovers， and misfortunes arise. The war drags on， and money is spent.”

16. 故曰明主慮之良將修之

Hence the saying: The enlightened ruler lays his plans well ahead; the good general cultivates his resources.

{158}

As Sun Tzŭ quotes this jingle in support of his assertion in § 15， we must suppose 修之 to stand for 修其功 or something analogous. The meaning seems to be that the ruler lays plans which the general must show resourcefulness in carrying out. It is now plainer than ever that 修 cannot mean “to reward.” Nevertheless， Tu Mu quotes the following from the 三略， ch. 2: 霸者制士以權結士以信使士以賞信衰則士疏賞虧則士不必命 “The warlike prince controls his soldiers by his authority， knits them together by good faith， and by rewards makes them serviceable. If faith decays， there will be disruption; if rewards are deficient， commands will not be respected.”

17. 非利不動非得不必非危不戰

Move not unless you see an advantage;

起， the Yü Lan’s variant for 動， is adopted by Li Ch‘üan and Tu Mu.

use not your troops unless there is something to be gained; fight not unless the position is critical.

Sun Tzŭ may at times appear to be over-cautious， but he never goes so far in that direction as the remarkable passage in the Tao Tê Ching， ch. 69: 吾不敢爲主而爲客不敢進寸而退尺 “I dare not take the initiative， but prefer to act on the defensive; I dare not advance an inch， but prefer to retreat a foot.”

18. 主不不错怒而興師將不不错愠而致戰

No ruler should put troops into the field merely to gratify his own spleen; no general should fight a battle simply out of pique.

Again compare Lao Tzŭ， ch. 68: 善戰者不怒. Chang Yü says that 愠 is a weaker word than 怒， and is therefore applied to the general as opposed to the sovereign. The T‘ung Tien and Yü Lan read 軍 for 師， and the latter 合 for 致.

19. 合於利而動不对於利而止

If it is to your advantage， make a forward move; if not， stay where you are.

This is repeated from XI. § 17. Here I feel convinced that it is an interpolation， for it is evident that § 20 ought to follow immediately on{159} § 18. For 動， the T‘ung Tien and Yü Lan have 用. Capt. Calthrop invents a sentence which he inserts before this one: “Do not make war unless victory may be gained thereby.” While he was about it， he might have credited Sun Tzŭ with something slightly less inane.

20. 怒不错復喜愠不错復悅

Anger may in time change to gladness; vexation may be succeeded by content.

According to Chang Yü， 喜 denotes joy outwardly manifested in the countenance， 悅 the inward sensation of happiness.

21. 一火國不不错復存死者不不错復生

But a kingdom that has once been destroyed can never come again into being;

The Wu State was destined to be a melancholy example of this saying. See p. 50.

nor can the dead ever be brought back to life.

22. 故明君愼之良將警之此安國全軍之谈也

Hence the enlightened ruler is heedful， and the good general full of caution.

警， which usually means “to warn，” is here equal to 戒. This is a good instance of how Chinese characters， which stand for ideas， refuse to be fettered by dictionary-made definitions. The T‘u Shu reads 故曰， as in § 16.

This is the way to keep a country at peace and an army intact.

It is odd that 全軍 should not have the same meaning here as in III. § 1， q.v. This has led me to consider whether it might not be possible to take the earlier passage thus: “to preserve your own army (country， regiment， etc.) intact is better than to destroy the enemy’s.” The two words do not appear in the T‘ung Tien or the Yü Lan. Capt. Calthrop misses the point by translating: “then is the state secure， and the army victorious in battle.”

間 is really a vulgar form of 閒， and does not appear in the Shuo Wên. In practice， however， it has gradually become a distinct character with special meanings of its own， and I have therefore followed my edition of the standard text in retaining this form throughout the chapter. In VI. § 25， on the other hand， the correct form 閒 will be found. The evolution of the meaning “spy” is worth considering for a moment， provided it be understood that this is very doubtful ground， and that any dogmatism is out of place. The Shuo Wên defines 閒 as 隟 (the old form of 隙) “a crack” or “chink，” and on the whole we may accept 徐鍇 Hsü Ch‘ieh’s analysis as not unduly fanciful: 夫門夜閉閉而見蟾光是有閒隟也 “At night， a door is shut; if， when it is shut， the light of the moon is visible， it must come through a chink.” From this it is an easy step to the meaning “space between，” or simply “between，” as for example in the phrase 往來閒諜 “to act as a secret spy between enemies.” Here 諜 is the word which means “spy;” but we may suppose that constant association so affected the original force of 閒， that 諜 could at last be dropped altogether， leaving 閒 to stand alone with the same signification. Another possible theory is that the word may first have come to mean 覗 “to peep” (see 博雅， quoted in K‘ang Hsi) which would naturally be suggested by “crack” or “crevice，” and afterwards the man who peeps， or spy.

1. 孫子曰凡興師十萬出师沉庶民之費公家之奉日費令嫒內外騷動怠於谈路不得操事者七十萬家

Sun Tzŭ said: Raising a host of a hundred thousand men and marching them great distances entails heavy loss on the people and a drain on the resources of the State. The daily expenditure will amount to a thousand ounces of silver.

{161}

Cf. II. §§ 1， 13， 14.

There will be commotion at home and abroad， and men will drop down exhausted on the highways.

怠於谈路， which is omitted by the Yü Lan， appears at first sight to be explained by the words immediately following， so that the obvious translation would be “(enforced) idleness along the line of march.” [Cf. Tao Tê Ching， ch. 30: 師之所處壅塞生焉 “Where troops have been quartered， brambles and thorns spring up.”] The commentators， however， say that 怠 is here equivalent to 疲—a meaning which is still retained in the phrase 疲困. Tu Mu refers 怠 to those who are engaged in conveying provisions to the army. But this can hardly be said to emerge clearly from Sun Tzŭ’s text. Chang Yü has the note: “We may be reminded of the saying: ‘On serious ground， gather in plunder’ [XI. § 13]. Why then should carriage and transportation cause exhaustion on the highways?—The answer is， that not victuals alone， but all sorts of munitions of war have to be conveyed to the army. Besides， the injunction to ‘forage on the enemy’ only means that when an army is deeply engaged in hostile territory， scarcity of food must be provided against. Hence， without being solely dependent on the enemy for corn， we must forage in order that there may be an uninterrupted flow of supplies. Then， again， there are places like salt deserts (磧鹵之地)， where provisions being unobtainable， supplies from home cannot be dispensed with.”

As many as seven hundred thousand families will be impeded in their labour.

Mei Yao-ch‘ên says: 廢於耒耜 “Men will be lacking at the plough-tail.” The allusion is to 井田 the system of dividing land into nine parts， as shown in the character 井， each consisting of a 夫 or 頃 (about 15 acres)， the plot in the centre being cultivated on behalf of the State by the tenants of the other eight. It was here also， so Tu Mu tells us， that their cottages were built and a well sunk， to be used by all in common. [See II. § 12， note.] These groups of eight peasant proprietors were called 鄰. In time of war， one of the families had to serve in the army， while the other seven contributed to its support (一家從軍七家奉弓). Thus， by a levy of 100，000 men (reckoning one able-bodied soldier to each family) the husbandry of 700，000 families would be affected.

2. 相守數年以爭一日之勝而愛爵祿百金不知敵之情者不仁之至也

Hostile armies may face each other for years， striving{162} for the victory which is decided in a single day. This being so， to remain in ignorance of the enemy’s condition simply because one grudges the outlay of a hundred ounces of silver in honours and emoluments，

“For spies” is of course the meaning， though it would spoil the effect of this curiously elaborate exordium if spies were actually mentioned at this point.

is the height of inhumanity.

Sun Tzŭ’s argument is certainly ingenious. He begins by adverting to the frightful misery and vast expenditure of blood and treasure which war always brings in its train. Now， unless you are kept informed of the enemy’s condition， and are ready to strike at the right moment， a war may drag on for years. The only way to get this information is to employ spies， and it is impossible to obtain trustworthy spies unless they are properly paid for their services. But it is surely false economy to grudge a comparatively trifling amount for this purpose， when every day that the war lasts eats up an incalculably greater sum. This grievous burden falls on the shoulders of the poor， and hence Sun Tzŭ concludes that to neglect the use of spies is nothing less than a crime against humanity.

3. 非东谈主之將也非主之佐也非勝之主也

One who acts thus is no leader of men， no present help to his sovereign，

An inferior reading for 主 is 仁， thus explained by Mei Yao-ch‘ên: 非以仁佐國者也.

no master of victory.

This idea， that the true object of war is peace， has its root in the national temperament of the Chinese. Even so far back as 597 B.C.， these memorable words were uttered by Prince 莊 Chuang of the Ch‘u State: 夫文止戈爲武 ... 夫武禁暴戢兵保大定功安民和衆豐財者也 “The character for ‘prowess’ (武) is made up of 止 ‘to stay’ and 戈 ‘a spear’ (cessation of hostilities). Military prowess is seen in the repression of cruelty， the calling in of weapons， the preservation of the appointment of Heaven， the firm establishment of merit， the bestowal of happiness on the people， putting harmony between the princes， the diffusion of wealth.” [Tso Chuan， 宣公 XII. 3 ad fin.]

{163}

4. 故明君賢將是以動而勝东谈主告成出於衆者先知也

Thus， what enables the wise sovereign and the good general to strike and conquer， and achieve things beyond the reach of ordinary men， is foreknowledge.

That is， knowledge of the enemy’s dispositions， and what he means to do.

5. 先知者不可取於鬼神不可象於事不可驗於度

Now this foreknowledge cannot be elicited from spirits;

以禱祀 “by prayers or sacrifices，” says Chang Yü. 鬼 are the disembodied spirits of men， and 神 supernatural beings or “gods.”

it cannot be obtained inductively from experience，

Tu Mu’s note makes the meaning clear: 象， he says， is the same as 類 reasoning by analogy; 不不错他事比類而求 “[knowledge of the enemy] cannot be gained by reasoning from other analogous cases.”

nor by any deductive calculation.

Li Ch‘üan says: 夫長短闊狹遠近小大卽可驗之於度數东谈主之情僞度不行知也 “Quantities like length， breadth， distance and magnitude， are susceptible of exact mathematical determination; human actions cannot be so calculated.”

6. 必取於东谈主知敵之情者也

Knowledge of the enemy’s dispositions can only be obtained from other men.

Mei Yao-ch‘ên has rather an interesting note: 鬼神之情不错筮卜知形氣之物不错象類求六合之理不错度數驗唯敵之情必由間者而後知也 “Knowledge of the spirit-world is to be obtained by divination; information in natural science may be sought by inductive reasoning; the laws of the universe can be verified by mathematical calculation: but the dispositions of an enemy are ascertainable through spies and spies alone.”

{164}

7. 故用間有五有鄉間有內間有反間有死間有生間

Hence the use of spies， of whom there are five classes: (1) Local spies; (2) inward spies; (3) converted spies; (4) doomed spies; (5) surviving spies.

8. 五間俱起莫知其谈是謂神紀东谈主君之寳也

When these five kinds of spy are all at work， none can discover the secret system.

谈 is explained by Tu Mu as 其情泄形露之谈 “the way in which facts leak out and dispositions are revealed.”

This is called

爲 is the reading of the standard text， but the T‘ung Tien， Yü Lan and T‘u Shu all have 謂.

“divine manipulation of the threads.”

Capt. Calthrop translates 神紀 “the Mysterious Thread，” but Mei Yao-ch‘ên’s paraphrase 神妙之綱紀 shows that what is meant is the control of a number of threads.

It is the sovereign’s most precious faculty.

“Cromwell， one of the greatest and most practical of all cavalry leaders， had officers styled ‘scout masters，’ whose business it was to collect all possible information regarding the enemy， through scouts and spies， etc.， and much of his success in war was traceable to the previous knowledge of the enemy’s moves thus gained.”[184]

9. 鄉間者因其鄉东谈主而用之

Having local spies

鄉間 is the emended reading of Chia Lin and the T‘u Shu for the unintelligible 因間， here and in § 7， of the standard text， which nevertheless reads 鄉間 in § 22.

means employing the services of the inhabitants of a district.

Tu Mu says: “In the enemy’s country， win people over by kind treatment， and use them as spies.”

{165}

10. 內間者因其官东谈主而用之

Having inward spies， making use of officials of the enemy.

官 includes both civil and military officials. Tu Mu enumerates the following classes as likely to do good service in this respect: “Worthy men who have been degraded from office， criminals who have undergone punishment; also， favourite concubines who are greedy for gold， men who are aggrieved at being in subordinate positions， or who have been passed over in the distribution of posts， others who are anxious that their side should be defeated in order that they may have a chance of displaying their ability and talents， fickle turncoats who always want to have a foot in each boat (飜覆變詐常持兩端之心者). Officials of these several kinds，” he continues， “should be secretly approached and bound to one’s interests by means of rich presents. In this way you will be able to find out the state of affairs in the enemy’s country， ascertain the plans that are being formed against you， and moreover disturb the harmony and create a breach between the sovereign and his ministers.” The necessity for extreme caution， however， in dealing with “inward spies，” appears from an historical incident related by Ho Shih: “羅尙 Lo Shang， Governor of 益州 I-chou， sent his general 隗伯 Wei Po to attack the rebel 李雄 Li Hsiung of 蜀 Shu in his stronghold at 郫 P‘i. After each side had experienced a number of victories and defeats， Li Hsiung had recourse to the services of a certain 朴泰 P‘o-t‘ai， a native of 武都 Wu-tu. He began by having him whipped until the blood came， and then sent him off to Lo Shang， whom he was to delude by offering to co-operate with him from inside the city， and to give a fire signal at the right moment for making a general assault. Lo Shang， confiding in these promises， marched out all his best troops， and placed Wei Po and others at their head with orders to attack at P‘o-t‘ai’s bidding. Meanwhile， Li Hsiung’s general， 李驤 Li Hsiang， had prepared an ambuscade on their line of march; and P‘o-t‘ai， having reared long scaling-ladders against the city walls， now lighted the beacon-fire. Wei Po’s men raced up on seeing the signal and began climbing the ladders as fast as they could， while others were drawn up by ropes lowered from above. More than a hundred of Lo Shang’s soldiers entered the city in this way， every one of whom was forthwith beheaded. Li Hsiung then charged with all his forces， both inside and outside the city， and routed the enemy completely.” [This happened in 303 A.D. I do not know where Ho Shih got the story from. It is not given in the biography of Li Hsiung or that of his father Li 特 T‘ê， Chin Shu， ch. 120， 121.]

{166}

11. 反間者因其敵間而用之

Having converted spies， getting hold of the enemy’s spies and using them for our own purposes.

By means of heavy bribes and liberal promises detaching them from the enemy’s service， and inducing them to carry back false information as well as to spy in turn on their own countrymen. Thus Tu Yu: 因厚賂重許反使爲我間也. On the other hand， 蕭世諴 Hsiao Shih-hsien in defining the 反間 says that we pretend not to have detected him， but contrive to let him carry away a false impression of what is going on (敵使东谈主來候我我佯不知而示以虛事). Several of the commentators accept this as an alternative definition; but that it is not what Sun Tzŭ meant is conclusively proved by his subsequent remarks about treating the converted spy generously (§ 21 sqq.). Ho Shih notes three occasions on which converted spies were used with conspicuous success: 1) by T‘ien Tan in his defence of Chi-mo (see supra， p. 90); 2) by Chao Shê on his march to O-yü (see p. 57); and by the wily 范雎 Fan Chü in 260 B.C.， when Lien P‘o was conducting a defensive campaign against Ch‘in. The King of Chao strongly disapproved of Lien P‘o’s cautious and dilatory methods， which had been unable to avert a series of minor disasters， and therefore lent a ready ear to the reports of his spies， who had secretly gone over to the enemy and were already in Fan Chü’s pay. They said: “The only thing which causes Ch‘in anxiety is lest 趙括 Chao Kua should be made general. Lien P‘o they consider an easy opponent， who is sure to be vanquished in the long run.” Now this Chao Kua was a son of the famous Chao Shê. From his boyhood， he had been wholly engrossed in the study of war and military matters， until at last he came to believe that there was no commander in the whole Empire who could stand against him. His father was much disquieted by this overweening conceit， and the flippancy with which he spoke of such a serious thing as war， and solemnly declared that if ever Kua was appointed general， he would bring ruin on the armies of Chao. This was the man who， in spite of earnest protests from his own mother and the veteran statesman 藺相如 Lin Hsiang-ju， was now sent to succeed Lien P‘o. Needless to say， he proved no match for the redoubtable Po Ch‘i and the great military power of Ch‘in. He fell into a trap by which his army was divided into two and his communications cut; and after a desperate resistance lasting 46 days， during which the famished soldiers devoured one another， he was himself killed by an arrow， and his whole force， amounting， it is said， to 400，000 men， ruthlessly put to the sword. [See 歷代紀事年表， ch. 19， ff. 48–50].

{167}

12. 死間者爲誑事於外令吾間知之而傳於敵

Having doomed spies， doing certain things openly for purposes of deception， and allowing our own spies to know of them and report them to the enemy.

傳 is Li Ch‘üan’s conjecture for 待， which is found in the T‘ung Tien and the Yü Lan. The T‘u Shu， unsupported by any good authority， adds 間也 after 敵. In that case， the doomed spies would be those of the enemy， to whom our own spies had conveyed false information. But this is unnecessarily complicated. Tu Yu gives the best exposition of the meaning: “We ostentatiously do things calculated to deceive our own spies， who must be led to believe that they have been unwittingly disclosed. Then， when these spies are captured in the enemy’s lines， they will make an entirely false report， and the enemy will take measures accordingly， only to find that we do something quite different. The spies will thereupon be put to death.” Capt. Calthrop makes a hopeless muddle of the sentence. As an example of doomed spies， Ho Shih mentions the prisoners released by Pan Ch‘ao in his campaign against Yarkand. (See p. 132.) He also refers to 唐儉 T‘ang Chien， who in 630 A.D. was sent by T‘ai Tsung to lull the Turkish Khan 頡利 Chieh-li into fancied security， until Li Ching was able to deliver a crushing blow against him. Chang Yü says that the Turks revenged themselves by killing T‘ang Chien， but this is a mistake， for we read in both the Old and the New T‘ang History (ch. 58， fol. 2 and ch. 89， fol. 8 respectively) that he escaped and lived on until 656. 酈食其 Li I-chi[185] played a somewhat similar part in 203 B.C.， when sent by the King of Han to open peaceful negotiations with Ch‘i. He has certainly more claim to be described as a 死間; for the King of Ch‘i， being subsequently attacked without warning by Han Hsin， and infuriated by what he considered the treachery of Li I-chi， ordered the unfortunate envoy to be boiled alive.

13. 生間者反報也

Surviving spies， finally， are those who bring back news from the enemy’s camp.

This is the ordinary class of spies， properly so called， forming a regular part of the army. Tu Mu says: 生間者必取內明外愚形劣心壯趫健勁勇閑於鄙事能忍饑寒垢耻者爲之 “Your surviving spy must be a man of keen intellect， though{168} in outward appearance a fool; of shabby exterior， but with a will of iron. He must be active， robust， endowed with physical strength and courage; thoroughly accustomed to all sorts of dirty work， able to endure hunger and cold， and to put up with shame and ignominy.” Ho Shih tells the following story of 達奚武 Ta-hsi Wu of the Sui dynasty: “When he was governor of Eastern Ch‘in， 神武 Shên-wu of Ch‘i made a hostile movement upon 沙苑 Sha-yüan. The Emperor T‘ai Tsu [? Kao Tsu] sent Ta-hsi Wu to spy upon the enemy. He was accompanied by two other men. All three were on horseback and wore the enemy’s uniform. When it was dark， they dismounted a few hundred feet away from the enemy’s camp and stealthily crept up to listen， until they succeeded in catching the passwords used by the army. Then they got on their horses again and boldly passed through the camp under the guise of night-watchmen (警夜者); and more than once， happening to come across a soldier who was committing some breach of discipline， they actually stopped to give the culprit a sound cudgelling! Thus they managed to return with the fullest possible information about the enemy’s dispositions， and received warm commendation from the Emperor， who in consequence of their report was able to inflict a severe defeat on his adversary.” With the above classification it is interesting to compare the remarks of Frederick the Great:[186] “Es giebt vielerley Sorten von Spions: 1. Geringe Leute， welche sich von diesem Handwerk meliren. 2. Doppelte Spions. 3. Spions von Consequenz， und endlich 4. Diejenigen， welche man zu diesem unglücklichen Hankwerk zwinget.” This of course is a bad cross-division. The first class (“Bürgersleute， Bauern， Priesters， etc.”) corresponds roughly to Sun Tzŭ’s “local spies，” and the third to “inward spies.” Of “Doppelte Spions” it is broadly stated that they are employed “um dem Feinde falsche Nachrichten aufzubinden.” Thus they would include both converted and doomed spies. Frederick’s last class of spies does not appear in Sun Tzŭ’s list， perhaps because the risk in using them is too great.

14. 故三軍之親莫親於間賞莫厚於間事莫密於間

Hence it is that with none in the whole army are more intimate relations to be maintained than with spies.

The original text and the T‘u Shu have 事 in place of the first 親. Tu Mu and Mei Yao-ch‘ên point out that the spy is privileged to enter even the general’s private sleeping-tent. Capt. Calthrop has an inaccurate translation: “In connection with the armies， spies should be treated with the greatest kindness.”

{169}

None should be more liberally rewarded.

Frederick concludes his chapter on spies with the words: “Zu allem diesem füge ich noch hinzu， dass man in Bezahlung der Spions freygebig， ja verschwenderisch seyn muss. Ein Mench， der um eures Dienstes halber den Strick waget， verdienet dafür belohnet zu werden.”

In no other business should greater secrecy be preserved.

Tu Mu gives a graphic touch: 出口入耳也， that is to say， all communications with spies should be carried on “mouth-to-ear.” Capt. Calthrop has: “All matters relating to spies are secret，” which is distinctly feeble. An inferior reading for 密 is 審. The following remarks on spies may be quoted from Turenne， who made perhaps larger use of them than any previous commander: “Spies are attached to those who give them most， he who pays them ill is never served. They should never be known to anybody; nor should they know one another. When they propose anything very material， secure their persons， or have in your possession their wives and children as hostages for their fidelity. Never communicate anything to them but what it is absolutely necessary that they should know.”[187]

15. 非聖智不行用間

Spies cannot be usefully employed

This is the nuance of Tu Yu’s paraphrase 不行得間东谈主之用.

without a certain intuitive sagacity.

Mei Yao-ch‘ên says: 知其情僞辨其邪正則能用 “In order to use them， one must know fact from falsehood， and be able to discriminate between honesty and double-dealing.” Wang Hsi takes 聖 and 智 separately， defining the former as 通而先識 “intuitive perception” and the latter as 明於事 “practical intelligence.” Tu Mu strangely refers these attributes to the spies themselves: 先量間者之性誠實多智然後可用之 “Before using spies we must assure ourselves as to their integrity of character and the extent of their experience and skill.” But he continues: 外温内厚險於山川非聖东谈主莫能知 “A brazen face and a crafty disposition are more dangerous than mountains or rivers; it takes a man of genius to penetrate such.” So that we are left in some doubt as to his real opinion on the passage.

{170}

16. 非仁義不行使間

They cannot be properly managed without benevolence and straightforwardness.

Chang Yü says that 仁 means “not grudging them honours and pay;” 義， “showing no distrust of their honesty.” “When you have attracted them by substantial offers， you must treat them with absolute sincerity; then they will work for you with all their might.”

17. 非神秘不行得間之實

Without subtle ingenuity of mind， one cannot make certain of the truth of their reports.

Mei Yao-ch‘ên says: “Be on your guard against the possibility of spies going over to the service of the enemy.” The T‘ung Tien and Yü Lan read 密 for 妙.

18. 微哉微哉無所不必間也

Be subtle! be subtle!

Cf. VI. § 9: 微乎微乎. Capt. Calthrop translates: “Wonderful indeed is the power of spies.”

and use your spies for every kind of business.

19. 間事未發而先聞者間與所告者齐死

If a secret piece of news is divulged by a spy before the time is ripe， he must be put to death together with the man to whom the secret was told.

The Chinese here is so concise and elliptical that some expansion is necessary for the proper understanding of it. 間事 denotes important information about the enemy obtained from a surviving spy. The subject of 未發， however， is not this information itself， but the secret stratagem built up on the strength of it. 聞者 means “is heard”—by anybody else. Thus， word for word， we get: “If spy matters are heard before [our plans] are carried out，” etc. Capt. Calthrop， in translating 間與所告者 “the spy who told the matter， and the man who repeated the same，” may appeal to the authority of the commentators; but he surely misses the main point of Sun Tzŭ’s injunction. For， whereas you kill the spy himself 惡其泄 “as a punishment for letting out the secret，” the object of killing the other man is only， as Ch‘ên Hao puts it， 以滅口 “to stop his mouth” and prevent the{171} news leaking any further. If it had already been repeated to others， this object would not be gained. Either way， Sun Tzŭ lays himself open to the charge of inhumanity， though Tu Mu tries to defend him by saying that the man deserves to be put to death， for the spy would certainly not have told the secret unless the other had been at pains to worm it out of him. The T‘ung Tien and Yü Lan have the reading ... 先聞其間者與， etc.， which， while not affecting the sense， strikes me as being better than that of the standard text. The T‘u Shu has ... 聞與所告者， which I suppose would mean: “the man who heard the secret and the man who told it to him.”

20. 凡軍之所欲擊城之所欲攻东谈主之所欲殺必先知其守將傍边謁者門者舍东谈主之姓名令吾間必索知之

Whether the object be to crush an army， to storm a city， or to assassinate an individual， it is always necessary to begin by finding out the names of the attendants，

傍边 is a comprehensive term for those who wait on others， servants and retainers generally. Capt. Calthrop is hardly happy in rendering it “right-hand men.”

the aides-de-camp，

謁者， literally “visitors，” is equivalent， as Tu Yu says， to 主告事者 “those whose duty it is to keep the general supplied with information，” which naturally necessitates frequent interviews with him. Chang Yü goes too far afield for an explanation in saying that they are 典賓客之將 “the leaders of mercenary troops.”

the door-keepers and sentries

閽吏 and 守舍之东谈主.

of the general in command.

守將， according to Chang Yü， is simply 守官任職之將 “a general on active service.” Capt. Calthrop is wrong， I think， in making 守將 directly dependent on 姓名 (... “the names of the general in charge，” etc.).

Our spies must be commissioned to ascertain these.

As the first step， no doubt， towards finding out if any of these important functionaries can be won over by bribery. Capt. Calthrop blunders badly with: “Then set the spies to watch them.”

{172}

21. 必索敵东谈主之間來間我者因而利之導而舍之故反間可得而用也

The enemy’s spies who have come to spy on us must be sought out，

必索 is omitted by the T‘ung Tien and Yü Lan. Its recurrence is certainly suspicious， though the sense may seem to gain by it. The T‘u Shu has this variation: ... 敵間之來間吾者， etc.

tempted with bribes， led away and comfortably housed.

舍 is probably more than merely 居止 or 稽留 “detain.” Cf. § 25 ad fin.， where Sun Tzŭ insists that these converted spies shall be treated well. Chang Yü’s paraphrase is 館舍.

Thus they will become converted spies and available for our service.

22. 因是而知之故鄉間內間可得而使也

It is through the information brought by the converted spy that we are able to acquire and employ local and inward spies.

Tu Yu expands 因是而知之 into 因反敵間而知敵情 “through conversion of the enemy’s spies we learn the enemy’s condition.” And Chang Yü says: 因是反間知彼鄉东谈主之貪利者官东谈主之有隙者誘而使之 “We must tempt the converted spy into our service， because it is he that knows which of the local inhabitants are greedy of gain， and which of the officials are open to corruption.” In the T‘ung Tien， 鄉 has been altered to 因， doubtless for the sake of uniformity with § 9.

23. 因是而知之故死間爲誑事可使告敵

It is owing to his information， again， that we can cause the doomed spy to carry false tidings to the enemy.

“Because the converted spy knows how the enemy can best be deceived” (Chang Yü). The T‘ung Tien text， followed by the Yü Lan， has here the obviously interpolated sentence 因是可得而攻也.

24. 因是而知之故生間有使按时

Lastly， it is by his information that the surviving spy can be used on appointed occasions.

Capt. Calthrop omits this sentence.

{173}

25. 五間之当事者必知之知之必在於反間故反間不可不厚也

The end and aim of spying in all its five varieties is knowledge of the enemy;

I have ventured to differ in this place from those commentators—Tu Yu and Chang Yü—who understand 主 as 东谈主主， and make 五間之事 the antecedent of 之 (the others ignoring the point altogether). It is plausible enough that Sun Tzŭ should require the ruler to be familiar with the methods of spying (though one would rather expect 將 “general” in place of 主). But this involves taking 知之 here in quite a different way from the 知之 immediately following， as also from those in the previous sentences. 之 there refers vaguely to the enemy or the enemy’s condition， and in order to retain the same meaning here， I make 主 a verb， governed by 五間之事. Cf. XI. § 19， where 主 is used in exactly the same manner. The sole objection that I can see in the way of this interpretation is the fact that the 死間， or fourth variety of spy， does not add to our knowledge of the enemy， but only misinforms the enemy about us. This would be， however， but a trivial oversight on Sun Tzŭ’s part， inasmuch as the “doomed spy” is in the strictest sense not to be reckoned as a spy at all. Capt. Calthrop， it is hardly necessary to remark， slurs over the whole difficulty.

and this knowledge can only be derived， in the first instance， from the converted spy.

As explained in §§ 22–24. He not only brings information himself， but makes it possible to use the other kinds of spy to advantage.

Hence it is essential that the converted spy be treated with the utmost liberality.

26. 昔殷之興也伊摯在夏周之興也呂牙在殷

Of old， the rise of the Yin dynasty

Sun Tzŭ means the 商 Shang dynasty， founded in 1766 B.C. Its name was changed to Yin by 盤庚 P‘an Kêng in 1401.

was due to I Chih

Better known as 伊尹 I Yin， the famous general and statesman who took part in Ch‘êng T‘ang’s campaign against 桀癸 Chieh Kuei.

{174}

who had served under the Hsia. Likewise， the rise of the Chou dynasty was due to Lü Ya

呂尙 Lü Shang， whose “style” was 子牙， rose to high office under the tyrant 紂辛 Chou Hsin， whom he afterwards helped to overthrow. Popularly known as 太公， a title bestowed on him by Wên Wang， he is said to have composed a treatise on war， erroneously identified with the 六韜.

who had served under the Yin.

There is less precision in the Chinese than I have thought it well to introduce into my translation， and the commentaries on the passage are by no means explicit. But， having regard to the context， we can hardly doubt that Sun Tzŭ is holding up I Chih and Lü Ya as illustrious examples of the converted spy， or something closely analogous. His suggestion is， that the Hsia and Yin dynasties were upset owing to the intimate knowledge of their weaknesses and shortcomings which these former ministers were able to impart to the other side. Mei Yao-ch‘ên appears to resent any such aspersion on these historic names: “I Yin and Lü Ya，” he says， “were not rebels against the Government (非叛於國也). Hsia could not employ the former， hence Yin employed him. Yin could not employ the latter， hence Chou employed him. Their great achievements were all for the good of the people.” Ho Shih is also indignant: 伊呂聖东谈主之耦豈爲东谈主間哉今孫子引之者言五間之用須上智之东谈主如伊呂之才调者不错用間葢重之之辭耳 “How should two divinely inspired men such as I and Lü have acted as common spies? Sun Tzŭ’s mention of them simply means that the proper use of the five classes of spies is a matter which requires men of the highest mental calibre like I and Lü， whose wisdom and capacity qualified them for the task. The above words only emphasise this point.” Ho Shih believes then that the two heroes are mentioned on account of their supposed skill in the use of spies. But this is very weak， as it leaves totally unexplained the significant words 在夏 and 在殷. Capt. Calthrop speaks， rather strangely， of “the province of Yin ... the country of Hsia ... the State of Chu ... the people of Shang.”

27. 故惟明君賢將能以上智爲間者必成大功此兵之要三軍之所恃而動也

Hence it is only the enlightened ruler and the wise general who will use the highest intelligence of the army for purposes of spying，

{175}

Ch‘ên Hao compares § 15: 非聖智不行用間. He points out that 湯武之聖伊呂宜用 “the god-like wisdom of Ch‘êng T‘ang and Wu Wang led them to employ I Yin and Lü Shang.” The T‘u Shu omits 惟.

and thereby they achieve great results.

Tu Mu closes with a note of warning: 夫水是以能濟舟亦有因水而覆沒者間是以能告成亦有憑間而傾敗者 “Just as water， which carries a boat from bank to bank， may also be the means of sinking it， so reliance on spies， while productive of great results， is oft-times the cause of utter destruction.”

Spies are a most important element in war， because on them depends an army’s ability to move.

The antecedent to 此 must be either 間者 or 用間者 understood from the whole sentence. Chia Lin says that an army without spies is like a man without ears or eyes.

Ai愛VIII. 12; X. 25， 26; XI. 18， 66; XIII. 2. „阨X. 21. an安II. 20; V. 22; VI. 4; XII. 22. Cha詐VII. 15. ch‘a察I. 2; VIII. 14; IX. 39; X. 13， 20; XI. 41. chan戰passim. „霑XI. 28. chang障IX. 21. „仗IX. 29. ch‘ang常VI. 32， 34; X. 18; XI. 29.* „長VI. 34. „嘗V. 9. chao朝VII. 28. chê者passim. „折V. 13; XI. 63. chên軫XII. 4.* ch‘ên陳VII. 32; IX. 25， 27; X. 18. „塵IX. 23. chêng爭III. 7; VII. 3， 5， 6， 7， 9， 10， 22: VIII. 3; XI. 1， 4， 11， 47， 55; XIII. 2. chêng正V. 3， 5， 10， 11; VII. 32; XI. 35. „政III. 3， 14; IV. 16; VII. 23; XI. 32， 56， 63. „整XI. 18. ch‘êng成III. 4; XI. 62; XIII. 4， 27. „城II. 2; III. 3， 4， 5， 6; VIII. 3; XI. 7， 55; XIII. 20. „乘⁠2II. 4， 17; XI. 19. „乘⁠4II. 1， 17. „稱IV. 17， 18， 19. chi計I. 3， 12， 15， 16; VI. 22; VII. 4， 22; X. 21; XI. 22. „及VI. 10; VII. 6; XI. 15， 19， 68. „汲IX. 30. „急II. 12. „己III. 18; IV. 2; VI. 18; X. 31; XI. 55. „紀XIII. 8. „𦮼II. 15. „擊VI. 15， 30; VII. 29， 32; VIII. 3; IX. 4; X. 7， 15， 19， 27， 28， 29; XI. 9， 29; XIII. 20. {177}„亟IX. 7， 15; XI. 65. „極VI. 25; XII. 8. „集IX. 32; XI. 16. „激V. 12. „既III. 16; VII. 25. „疾V. 12， 13; VII. 17; IX. 12; XI. 10. „機V. 15; XI. 38. „飢VI. 4; VII. 31; IX. 29. „積IV. 20; VII. 11; XI. 22; XII. 1. „㦸II. 14. „籍II. 8. „箕XII. 4.* „濟IX. 4; XI. 30. „繼XI. 49. ch‘i其passim. „期IX. 27; XI. 38， 66; XIII. 24. „旗II. 17; VII. 23， 24， 26， 32; IX. 33. „器III. 4. „漆II. 1. „起II. 4; IX. 22; XII. 3， 4; XIII. 8. „隙III. 11; IX. 15. „齊IX. 43; XI. 16， 32. „七II. 13; XIII. 1. „奇V. 3， 5， 6， 10， 11. „谿IV. 20; X. 25. „氣VII. 27， 28， 29; XI. 22. chia家I. 25; II. 13， 14， 20; XIII. 1. „甲II. 1， 14; VII. 7. „加V. 4; XI. 54， 55. chia葭IX. 17. chiang江V. 6. „彊V. 17， 18. „將⁠1XI. 18， 46， 47， 48， 49， 50. „將⁠4I. 4， 9， 11， 13， 15; II. 15， 20; III. 5， 11， 17; VII. 1， 7， 9， 27; VIII. 1， 4， 5， 12， 13， 14; IX. 33; X. 13， 14， 17， 18， 19， 20， 21; XI. 35， 40， 61; XII. 16， 18， 22; XIII. 3， 4， 20， 27. „蔣IX. 17. ch‘iang强I. 13， 21; II. 18; III. 11; IX. 24; X. 16， 19; XII. 13. chiao交III. 3; VII. 2， 12; VIII. 2; IX. 8; XI. 1， 5， 12， 28， 48， 52， 54， 55. „校I. 3， 12. „教IX. 44; X. 18. „驕I. 22; X. 26. „膠II. 1. ch‘iao巧II. 5; XI. 62. „樵IX. 23. chieh竭II. 11， 12; V. 6. „齐VI. 27; XI. 33; XIII. 19. „戒XI. 19， 25. „潔VIII. 12. „節V. 13， 14， 15. „解VIII. 9. „結XI. 48. ch‘ieh且III. 16; XI. 23. {178}„怯V. 17， 18; VII. 25. chien閒 or 間VI. 25; XIII. passim. „澗IX. 15. „兼VII. 7. „姦IX. 17. „堅III. 10. „賤IX. 11; XI. 15. „踐XI. 67. „見I. 26; IV. 8， 10; VII. 23; IX. 31. ch‘ien千II. 1; IV. 20; V. 23; VI. 6， 19; XI. 61; XIII. 1. „淺XI. 42， 44. „前VI. 17， 20; IX. 9; XI. 15， 45. chih知passim. „智I. 9; II. 4， 15; IV. 12; VIII. 7; XIII. 15， 27. „之passim. „之[=至] VI. 12; XI. 39. „止V. 22; XI. 11， 17; XII. 8， 11， 19. „支X. 1， 6， 7. „直VII. 3， 4， 22. „制I. 7， 10， 17; VI. 27， 31; X. 21. „志XI. 46. „摯XIII. 26.* „鷙V. 13. „治V. 1， 17， 18; VII. 29， 30， 31， 32; VIII. 6; X. 26; XI. 35. „至III. 16; V. 12， 13; VI. 3， 9， 25; VII. 4， 8， 9， 10; IX. 14， 37; X. 13， 20; XI. 6， 26， 29; XIII. 2. chih致VI. 2; XII. 18. ch‘ih馳II. 1. „斥IX. 7， 8. chin近I. 8， 19; II. 11; VI. 20; VII. 31; IX. 15， 16， 18; X. 21. „進III. 13; VI. 10; VII. 25; IX. 19， 24， 28， 31， 40; X. 24; XI. 49. „盡II. 7; XI. 23. „金II. 1; VII. 23， 24; XIII. 1， 2. „謹IX. 17， 39; XL 22， 48. „禁XI. 26. „襟XI. 28. ch‘in親I. 23; IX. 42; XI. 25; XIII. 14. „擒III. 10; VII. 7; IX. 41. „侵VII. 18. „靜V. 22; VI. 23; VII. 30; IX. 18; XI. 35; XII. 7. „旌II. 17: VII. 23， 24， 26; IX. 33. „井IX. 15， 17. „勁VII. 8. „經I. 3. „精IX. 37. „警XII. 22. „境XI. 43. ch‘ing情I. 3， 12; XI. 19， 41， 51; XIII. 2， 6. „請IX. 26. {179}„輕IX. 25; XI. 1， 3， 11， 44， 46. chio角VI. 24. „爵XIII. 2. chiu九IV. 7; VIII. 4， 5， 6; XI. 41. „久II. 2， 3， 5， 6， 19; III. 6; IX. 39; XII. 11. „救VI. 11， 20; XI. 15， 30. ch‘iu求IV. 15; V. 21; X. 24; XI. 25. „丘II. 12， 14. „邱VII. 33; IX. 13. „秋IV. 10. chiung窘IX. 36. ch‘iung窮V. 6， 10， 11; VI. 28; VII. 36; IX. 34; X. 30. cho拙II. 5. chou晝VII. 26， 28; XII. 11. „舟XI. 30， 39. „周III. 11: XIII. 26.* „胄II. 14. chu主I. 10， 13; II. 20; X. 23， 24; XI. 19， 20; XII. 16， 18; XIII. 3， 25. „諸II. 4; III. 16; VII. 12; VIII. 10; XI. 2， 6， 28，* 38， 52. „著IX. 45. „助IX. 13; X. 21. „誅XI. 64. „屬XI. 6， 46. ch‘u處⁠3VI. 1， 24， 30; VII. 7; IX. 1， 2， 6， 8， 9， 12， 13: XI. 68. ch‘u處⁠4IX. 17. „出I. 24; V. 6; VI. 5; IX. 25; X. 5， 6， 7; XIII. 1， 4. chuan專VI. 13， 14; VII. 25; XI. 20， 42. „轉V. 22， 23. ch‘uan傳I. 25; XIII. 12. chui追VI. 10. „隊XII. I. chun諄IX. 35. „衆passim. „重VII. 6， 11; IX. 33; XI. 1， 7， 13， 44， 49. „鍾II. 15. „終V. 6. „中II. 13; IX. 8; XI. 29. ch‘ung衝VI. 10. chü居IX. 20， 25; X. 3， 8， 9， 10， 11; XI. 37. „舉II. 1; IV. 10; VII. 6; X. 30; XI. 63. „聚VII. 2; VIII. 1; XI. 40， 54. „車II. 1， 14， 17; IX. 23， 25. „具III. 4; XII. 2. „俱X. 25; XI. 29; XIII. 8. „沮VII. 13; XI. 8， 52. „拒XI. 68. „距III. 4. „拘XI. 24. „懼XI. 24. ch‘ü去I. 15; II. 13， 14; IX. 7， 15， 39; X. 7， 11; XI. 26， 38， 43. {180}„取I. 20; II. 9， 16; V. 19; VI. 7， 33; IX. 40， 43; XII. 15; XIII. 5， 6. „屈II. 2， 4， 13; III. 2， 6; VIII. 10; XI. 41. „趨VI. 1， 5， 29， 30; VII. 7: VIII. 10; XI. 47. „驅IX. 24; XI. 39. „衢VIII. 2; XI. 1， 6， 12， 43， 48. „曲I. 10. chüan卷VII. 7. „倦IX. 33. ch‘üan全III. 1， 7; IV. 7; X. 31; XII. 22. „權I. 17; III. 15; VII. 21; XI. 55. chüeh絶VIII. 2; IX. 1， 3， 4， 7， 15; XI. 22， 43; XII. 14. „決IV. 20; XI. 67. „蹶VII. 9. ch‘üeh闕VII. 36; XI. 50. chün君III. 12， 17; VII. 1; VIII. 1， 3; XII. 22; XIII. 4， 8， 27. „軍passim. „均X. 12， 15. ch‘ün羣XI. 39. Êrh二I. 4; II. 15; IV. 17; VII. 10; XII. 1. êrh耳IV. 10; VII. 24， 26; XI. 36. „兒X. 25. „而passim. Fa法I. 4， 10， 13; II. 1; III. 1， 4， 7， 8; IV. 16， 17; VII. 1， 8， 9， 22， 25， 33， 37; VIII. 1， 11; XI. 1， 56. Fa發V. 15; VII. 4; XI. 28， 38; XII. 3， 6， 7， 9， 10; XIII. 19. „罰I. 13; IX. 36， 42. „伐III. 3; XI. 54. fan反XIII. 7， 11， 13， 21， 25. „返IX. 34; X. 4， 5. „凡passim. „犯XI. 56， 57. „煩VIII. 12. fang方V. 22; XI. 31. „防IX. 13. fei費II. 1， 13， 14; XII. 15; XIII. 1. „非III. 2， 6; IV. 8， 9; IX. 40; X. 14; XI. 27， 53; XII. 17; XIII. 3， 15， 16， 17. fên分III. 5， 8; V. 1; VI. 13， 14; VII. 10， 16， 20. „忿III. 5; VIII. 12. „紛V. 16. „焚XI. 39. „轒III. 4. fêng風VII. 17; XI. 30; XII. 4， 10， 11. „奉II. 1; XIII. 1. „鋒X. 19. fou缻IX. 34. „覆IX. 22. fu符XI. 63. „附III. 5; IX. 5， 42. {181}„夫passim. „扶XI. 15. „復V. 6; VI. 28; XII. 20， 21. „覆VIII. 14; IX. 17. „伏IX. 17， 22. „負I. 14， 26; III. 18. „服IX. 42， 44; X. 17. „釜XI. 39. „赴X. 25. „輔III. 11. Hai害II. 7; VI. 3; VIII. 7， 9， 10; XI. 57， 59. han寒I. 7. hao亳IV. 10. hêng橫X. 18. ho合V. 5; VII. 2， 16; VIII. 1， 2; IX. 39; X. 19， 24; XI. 12， 16， 17， 54; XII. 19. „闔XI. 65. „何XI. 18. „河V. 6. „和VII. 2; IX. 26. hou厚X. 26; XIII. 14， 25. „侯II. 4; III. 16; VII. 12; VIII. 10; XI. 2， 6， 52. „後passim. hsi昔IV. 1; XIII. 26. „喜IX. 11; XII. 20. „奚VI. 21. „翕IX. 35. „息IX. 38. „攜XI. 34. hsia下III. 3， 7， 17; IV. 7， 9; VI. 29; IX. 11; XI. 6， 15， 55; XII. 10. „夏XIII. 26.* hsia狹I. 8. hsiang相⁠1V. 11; VII. 23; IX. 39， 45; XI. 15， 30; XIII. 2. „相⁠4IX. 1. „鄉VII. 14， 20; XI. 52; XIII. 7， 9， 22. „向VII. 33; XI. 61. „象VI. 29; XIII. 5. „祥XI. 26. „詳XI. 60. hsiao小III. 10; IX. 17. hsieh械III. 4. „駭IX. 22. „謝IX. 38. hsien先passim. „險I. 8; V. 14; VII. 13; IX. 17， 18; X. 1， 10， 21; XI. 8， 40， 52. „陷IX. 15; X. 14， 16; XI. 24， 58， 59. hsien賢XIII. 4， 27. hsin信I. 9; IX. 45; XI. 25. „心VII. 27， 30. hsing行I. 13; V. 22; VI. 6， 29， 34; VII. 7， 13; IX. 42， 44; XI. 8， 13， 52; XII. 2. „形passim. „興XII. 18: XIII. 1， 26. „性V. 22. {182}„姓II. 10， 11， 13; XIII. 1， 20. hsiu修III. 4; IV. 6; XI. 25; XII. 15， 16. „休IX. 38. hsiung凶XII. 15. hsü虛II. 13; V. 4; VI. 10; IX. 32. „徐VII. 17; IX. 35. „宿XII. 4. hsüan懸VII. 21; IX. 34; XI. 56. „選X. 19. hsün循V. 11. hu乎I. 26; VI. 9; XI. 30. „呼IX. 32. „戶XI. 68. hua化VI. 33. „畫VI. 12. „譁VII. 30. huan患III. 12; VII. 3; VIII. 9. „環V. 11. huang黃IX. 10.* „潢IX. 17. hui毁III. 6; V. 13. „隳XI. 55. „會VI. 19. hun渾V. 16. huo貨II. 4， 16; XI. 27. „火VII. 18， 26; XII. passim. „惑III. 14， 16. „活XI. 50. I一passim. „已II. 17; III. 4; IV. 13; IX. 40， 42; XI. 24， 34， 51. I易I. 8; IV. 11; IX. 9， 20， 41; XI. 37. „意I. 5， 24; VI. 5; XI. 60. „益II. 18; VI. 21; IX. 24， 40. „鎰IV. 19. „疑III. 15， 16; IX. 21; XI. 26. „佚I. 23; VI. 1， 4; VII. 31. „役II. 8， 12; VIII. 10. „亦VI. 21; XI. 4. „俅IX. 1， 8. „倚IX. 29. „伊XIII. 26.* „邑XI. 7. „頤XI. 28. „夷XI. 63. „義XIII. 16. „蟻III. 5. „翼XII. 4.* „蘙IX. 17. „以passim. „矣passim. Jan然II. 1; XI. 29， 30， 58， 59. jao擾IX. 33. „饒XI. 21. jên东谈主passim. „仁I. 9; XIII. 2， 16. „任III. 15; V. 21， 22; X. 13， 20. „仞IV. 20; V. 23. jih日II. 1; IV. 10; V. 6; VI. 19， 20， 34; VII. 7; XI. 28， 63; XII. 3， 4; XIII. 1， 2. {183}jo若III. 9; IV. 19， 20; IX. 8; X. 5， 9， 11; XI. 18， 32， 34， 39， 56. „弱III. 11; V. 17， 18; X. 16， 18， 19. jou肉IX. 34. „柔XI. 33. ju辱VIII. 12. „入IX. 35; XI. passim. „如V. passim; VII. 17， 18， 19; X. 25， 26; XI. 29， 30， 38， 68; XIII. 24. jui鋭II. 2， 4; VII. 28， 29， 34; IX. 23. K‘ai開XI. 65， 68. kan敢XI. 18， 30. „秆II. 15. kang剛XI. 33. kao高VI. 11， 29; VII. 33; IX. 2， 6， 9， 11， 23: X. 3， 10; XI. 38. „告XI. 57; XIII. 19， 23. kêng更II. 17. ko革II. 1; XI. 37. k‘o渴IX. 30. „客II. 1; IX. 4， 5; XI. 20， 42. „克XI. 20. „可passim. kou溝VI. 11. k‘ou宼VII. 36; IX. 34. ku古IV. 11; XI. 15. „固VI. 7; XI. 24， 45， 48. „故passim. „谷IX. 1. „饱读VII. 23， 24， 26. k‘u庫XII. 1. kua寡III. 17; V. 1， 2; VI. 14， 15， 16， 17， 18; XI. 9， 15. „挂X. 1， 4， 5. kuai乖VI. 12. kuan官I. 10; XIII. 10. „關XI. 63. „觀I. 26; V. 8. kuang廣I. 8; IX. 23. k‘uang況I. 26; VI. 20. „誑XIII. 12， 23. kuei歸VII. 28， 29， 35; XI. 9. „鬼XIII. 5. „貴II. 11， 19; IX. 11; XI. 15. „劌XI. 28.* „詭I. 18. k‘uei窺VI. 25. „饋II. 1. k‘un困IX. 36. kung公II. 14; XIII. 1. „功IV. 12; XIII. 4， 27. „攻passim. „共VI. 14. k‘ung恐IX. 32. kuo國I. 1; II. 3， 6， 9， 10， 20; III. 1， 6， 11; X. 24; XI. 43， 54， 55; XII. 21， 22. „過IV. 8; V. 7， 8， 9， 10; VIII. 13; X. 14; XI. 51. „彍V. 15. {184}„廓VII. 20. Lai來VIII. 11; IX. 4， 21， 23， 38; X. 2; XI. 5， 18， 39; XIII. 21. lang廊XI. 64. lao勞I. 23; VI. 1， 4， 6; VII. 31; IX. 31; XI. 22. „牢IX. 15. lei壘VI. 11. „雷IV. 10; VII. 19. li吏IX. 33; X. 16， 17， 18. „里II. 1; VI. 6， 19， 20; VII. 7， 9， 10; XI. 61; XIII. 1. „理VI. 23; XI. 33， 41. „力II. 2， 4， 13; IV. 10; VII. 31; IX. 40; XI. 22， 23; XII. 8. „立IV. 14; VII. 15; IX. 29. „離I. 23; XI. 16. „厲XI. 64. „利passim. liang量IV. 17， 18. „糧II. 1， 8， 9; VII. 11; X. 3. „良XII. 16， 22. liao料IX. 40; X. 19， 21. lien廉VIII. 12. „練I. 13. lin林VII. 13， 17; IX. 17; XI. 8， 52. ling令I. 5， 13; IX. 4， 43， 44， 45; X. 7， 26; XI. 25， 28， 56; XIII. 12， 20. „陵VII. 33; IX. 13. liu六II. 14; X. 13， 14， 20. „留I. 15; VIII. 2; IX. 7; XII. 15. „流VI. 31; IX. 6. lo羅IX. 15. lu虜VIII. 12. „櫓II. 14; III. 4. „路XIII. 1. „陸IX. 9. „祿XIII. 2. luan亂I. 20; III. 16; V. 16， 17， 18; VII. 30; IX. 33; X. 14， 18， 26. „卵V. 4. lun輪XI. 31. lung隆IX. 2. lü慮VIII. 7; IX. 41; XI. 37; XII. 16. „呂XIII. 26.* „旅III. 1. „屢IX. 36. lüeh掠VII. 18， 20; XI. 13， 21. Ma馬II. 14; IX. 34; XI. 31. mai賣II. 11. „埋XI. 31. mei每III. 18. mên門XIII. 20. mi縻III. 13. „迷X. 30. „密XIII. 14. miao廟I. 26; XI. 64. „妙XII. 17. min民I. 5， 6; II. 20; IV. 20; VII. 24， 25， 26; VIII. 12: IX. 44; X. 24. {185}ming命II. 20; VI. 9; VII. 1; VIII. 1， 3; XI. 27; XII. 15. „名IV. 12; V. 2; X. 24; XIII. 20. ming明I. 13; IV. 10; X. 18; XII. 13， 16， 22: XIII. 4， 27. mo沫IX. 14. „墨XI. 67. „莫I. 11; VI. 27; VII. 3; XI. 39; XIII. 8， 14. mou謀III. 3， 7; VI. 25; VII. 12; VIII. 2; IX. 26: XI. 14， 22， 37， 52. mu目IV. 10: VII. 24， 26; XI. 36. „木V. 22. „暮VII. 28. Nai乃I. 16; X. 31. nan難III. 16; VII. 3， 19; IX. 42; X. 4， 5， 12; XI. 8. nao撓I. 22. nei內II. 1， 13; IX. 4; XII. 6， 9; XIII. 1， 7， 10， 22. nêng能passim. ni餌VII. 35. „逆VII. 33. niao鳥V. 13; IX. 22， 32. nien年XIII. 2. niu牛II. 14. nu怒I. 22; II. 16; IX. 33， 39; X. 17; XII. 18， 20. „弩II. 14; V. 15. nü女XI. 68. O遏VII. 35. Pa拔III. 5， 6; XI. 55. „霸XI. 53， 54. pai敗I. 15; IV. 13， 14， 15， 16， 19; V. 3， 16; VI. 21; X. 20， 22; XI. 59. pan半VII. 9; IX. 4， 28; X. 7， 27， 28， 29. p‘ang旁IX. 17. pao保IV. 7， 16; X. 24. „寳X. 24; XIII. 8. „報XIII. 13. „暴II. 3; IX. 37. „飽VI. 4; VII. 31. pei倍III. 8; VII. 7. „北VII. 34; X. 14， 19; XI. 23. „背VII. 33; IX. 8， 9， 13， 16; XI. 7， 45. „卑I. 22; IX. 23， 24. „備I. 21， 24; VI. 16， 17， 18; IX. 24; X. 5. pên奔IX. 27. p‘êng崩X. 14， 17. pi壁XII. 4.* „避I. 21; III. 9; VI. 29; VII. 29; X. 24. „弊II. 4. „蔽II. 14. „必passim. „彼III. 18; X. 2， 6， 31; XI. 4， 5， 9. p‘i譬X. 26; XI. 29. „圮VIII. 2; XI. 1， 8， 13， 49. „罷II. 14; VII. 8. p‘iao漂V. 12. {186}pien變V. 7， 8， 9， 10; VI. 33; VII. 16， 26， 32; VIII. 4， 5， 6; XI. 41; XII. 5， 12. pin賓II. 1. p‘in貧II. 10. ping并XI. 61. „併IX. 40; XI. 22. „兵passim. p‘ing平IX. 9. po百II. 10， 11， 13; III. 2， 18; VII. 7; IX. 12; XIII. 1. 2. „迫VII. 36. p‘o破II. 14; III. 1; XI. 39. pu不passim. Sai塞XI. 50. san三I. 4; II. 8; III. passim; IV. 17; V. 2; VII. 7， 10， 27; XI. 6， 21， 40， 56; XII. 1; XIII. 14， 27. „散IX. 23; XI. 1， 2， 11， 42， 46. sao燥XII. 4. „騷XIII. 1. sê色V. 8. sha殺II. 16; III. 5; VIII. 12， 14; XI. 6; XIII. 20. shan山V. 23; VII. 13， 18; IX. 1， 2; XI. 8， 29， 52. „善passim. shang上I. 5; III. 1， 3， 17; IV. 7; VII. 9; IX. 6， 14; X. 21; XI. 15， 64; XII. 10; XIII. 27. „賞I. 13; II. 17; IX. 36; XI. 56; XIII. 14. shao少I. 26; III. 9; IX. 23; X. 19. shê舍VII. 2; VIII. 2; IX. 34; XIII. 20， 21. „虵XI. 29. „涉IX. 14. shên深VI. 11， 25; X. 25; XI. passim. „信VIII. 8; XI. 55. [See under _hsin_.] „伸XI. 41. „神VI. 9， 33; XIII. 5， 8. „甚XI. 24. „愼XII. 22. shêng勝passim. „生I. 2， 6， 8; IV. 18; V. 6， 11， 17; VI. 23， 34; VIII. 12; IX. 2， 6， 9， 12， 17; XI. 58; XII. 21; XIII. 7， 13， 24. „聲V. 7; VI. 9. „聖XIII. 15. shih是passim. „矢II. 14. „失IV. 14; VI. 22; IX. 35. „石II. 15; V. 12， 22， 23. „始V. 6; XI. 68. „示I. 19; XI. 50. „施XI. 56. „弛X. 14， 16. „時I. 7; V. 6; VI. 34; XII. 3， 4， 9. „識III. 17; XI. 37. „埶V. passim. „勢I. 16， 17; VI. 32; X. 12， 15. {187}„十II. 1， 13， 14， 15， 17; III. 8; VI. 14， 20; VII. 8， 9， 10; X. 15; XIII. 1. „士I. 13; III. 5， 14， 15; XI. 23， 24， 27， 28， 36. „實I. 21; V. 4; VI. 30; IX. 12; XIII. 17. „使IV. 3; V. 3; VI. 3， 18， 22; X. 26; XI. passim; XIII. 16， 22， 23， 24. „事I. 1; III. 14; XI， XIII. passim. „恃VIII. 11; IX. 18; XI. 15， 31; XIII. 27. „師II. 1， 3， 10， 11; VII. 36; XI. 43; XII. 18; XIII. 1. „視VII. 23; IX. 2， 6; X. 25. „食II. 9， 15; VII. 11， 35; IX. 34; XI. 21， 49. shou受V. 3; VII. 1; VIII. 1， 3. „守IV. 5， 6， 7; VI. 7， 8， 12; XI. 48; XII. 12; XIII. 2， 20. „手XI. 30， 34. „獸IX. 22. „首XI. 29. „壽XI. 27. shu數IV. 17， 18; V. 1， 18; VI. 20; IX. 36; XII. 12; XIII. 2. „樹IX. 8， 21. „孰I. 13; V. 11. „銖IV. 19. „輸II. 10. „暑I. 7. „術VIII. 6. shuai率XI. 29， 30. „帥XI. 38. shui水IV. 20; V. 12; VI. 29， 31， 32; IX. 3， 4， 5， 6， 8， 14; XII. 13， 14. shun楯II. 14. „順XI. 60. so所passim. „索I. 3， 12; IX. 17; XIII. 20， 21. ssŭ死I. 2， 6， 8; V. 6; VI. 23， 34; VIII. 2， 12; IX. 9， 10; X. 25; XI. passim; XII. 21; XIII. 7， 12， 19， 23. „四I. 4; IV. 17; V. 6; VI. 34; XI. 43， 53; XII. 1， 4. „駟II. 1. „司II. 20; VI. 9. „私XI. 55. su速II. 5; VI. 10; VIII. 12; XI. 19. „素IX. 44， 45; XII. 2. „粟IX. 34. suan算I. 26. sui雖II. 4; VI. 11， 21， 22; VIII. 5， 6; X. 7. „隨XI. 67. sun孫passim. Ta大I. 1; II. 14; III. 10; X. 17; XI. 54; XIII. 27. „達IX. 23; XI. 43. tai待III. 17; IV. 1; V. 20; VI. 1; VII. 30， 31; VIII. 11; IX. 14; X. 8， 10; XI. 18; XII. 7， 9. {188}„殆III. 18; X. 31. „怠XIII. 1. „帶II. 1. tan殫II. 4， 13. tang當II. 15; XI. 30. t‘ang堂VII. 32. tao谈I. passim; III. 17; IV. 16; VII. 7; X. passim; XI. 8， 19， 20， 32， 42; XII. 22; XIII. 1， 8. „導VII. 14; XI. 52; XIII. 21. t‘ao逃III. 9. tê得passim. t‘ê忒IV. 13. têng登IX. 2; XI. 38. ti地I. 2， 4， 8， 13; IV. 7， 14， 18; V. 6; VI. passim; VII. 14， 20; VIII. 2， 3， 5; IX. 13， 15; X. 1， 13， 21， 29， 31; XI. passim. „敵II. 9， 15， 16， 18; III. 9， 10; IV. 1， 2， 3， 14; V. 3， 19; VI， IX， X， XI， XIII. passim. „帝IX. 10. „隄IX. 13. t‘i梯XI. 38. „涕XI. 28. t‘iao挑IX. 19; X. 12. „條IX. 23. t‘ien天I. 4， 7， 13; III. 7; IV. 7， 9; V. 6; IX. 15; X. 14， 31; XI. 6， 55; XII. 4. ting定IX. 14. t‘ing聽I. 15， 16; V. 7; XI. 18. „霆IV. 10; VII. 19. to度IV. 18; VI. 21; XIII. 5. „惰VII. 28， 29. „奪VII. 27; XI. 18; XII. 14. „多I. 26; IV. 10; VI. 16， 21; VII. 26; IX. 21， 40; XI. 7. t‘o脫XI. 68. tou鬥V. 2， 16; VI. 22; XI. 24， 51. t‘ou投V. 4; XI. 23， 28， 40， 58. tsa雜II. 17; VIII. 7， 8， 9. tsai在passim. „災III. 5; VIII. 13; X. 14; XI. 26. „哉VI. 21; XIII. 18. „再II. 8. „載II. 8. ts‘ai財II. 11， 12， 13; XI. 27. „材II. 1. „採IX. 23. ts‘ang藏IV. 7; IX. 17. tsao早XII. 6. ts‘ao草IX. 8， 21. „操XIII. 1. tsê則passim. „擇V. 21. „澤VII. 13; IX. 7， 8; XI. 8， 52. „責V. 21. ts‘ê側IX. 25. „測XI. 22. {189}„策VI. 22. tso左VI. 17， 20; XI. 30; XIII. 20. „佐I. 16; XII. 13; XIII. 3. „作VI. 23. „坐XI. 28. ts‘o挫II. 2， 4. „措IV. 13. „錯VI. 26. tsou走IX. 27; X. 14， 15. tsu卒I. 13; II. 17; III. 1; V. 20; VII. 34; IX. 42; X. 16， 18， 25， 27， 28， 29; XI. 16， 28， 36. „足II. 3， 9; IV. 6; VI. 24; IX. 40; XI. 21， 31. „阻VII. 13; IX. 17; XI. 8， 52. tsui罪X. 24. ts‘un存I. 2; XI. 10， 58; XII. 21. tsung縱X. 18. ts‘ung從V. 19; VII. 34; X. 9， 11; XI. 9， 51; XII. 8. „聰IV. 10. tu睹II. 5. „獨VII. 25. t‘u徒IX. 23. „兎XI. 68. „途VII. 4; XI. 37. „塗VIII. 3; XI. 49. tuan短V. 14; VI. 34. „端V. 11. „碫V. 4. tui懟X. 17. t‘ui退III. 13; VI. 10; VII. 25; IX. 24， 28; X. 24. tun沌V. 16. „鈍II. 2， 4. „頓III. 7. tung動IV. 7; V. 19， 20， 22; VI. 4， 23; VII. 15， 18， 19， 21; IX. 21， 33; X. 30; XI. 17; XII. 17， 19; XIII. 1， 4， 27. t‘ung通VIII. 4， 5; X. 1， 2， 3; XI. 63. „同I. 5; III. 14， 15， 17; XI. 30. tzŭ子I. 1; X. 25， 26; _et al_. „自IV. 7; VI. 3; X. 17; XI. 2. „輜VII. 6， 11; XII. 1. tz‘ŭ此passim. Wai外I. 16; II. 1; XII. 6， 9; XIII. 1， 12. wan萬II. 1; XIII. 1. wang往IX. 23; X. 2， 4; XI. 5， 23， 24， 28， 39， 45. „一火I. 2; VII. 11; XI. 10， 58; XII. 21. „王XI. 53， 54. wei爲passim. „謂II. 18; III. 13， 16; IV. 11; VI. 33; IX. 12. 43; XI. 15， 40， 62; XIII. 8. „畏I. 6; IX. 37. „危I. 6; II. 20; V. 22; VII. 5; VIII. 12， 14; XII. 17. „唯X. 24. „惟IX. 7， 40， 41; XIII. 27. „尾XI. 29. {190}„威XI. 54， 55. „未passim. „味V. 9. „位VI. 34. „薈IX. 17. „委VII. 6， 11; IX. 38. „微VI. 9; XI. 66; XIII. 17， 18. „圍III. 8; VII. 36; VIII. 2; XI. 1， 9， 14， 45， 50， 51. „葦IX. 17. wên文IX. 43. „愠XII. 18， 20. „問XI. 18， 30. „聞I. 11; II. 5; IV. 10; VII. 23; XIII. 19. wo我VI. 11， 12， 13， 14， 27; X. 2， 6， 7， 8， 10; XI. 4， 5; XIII. 21. „臥XI. 28. wu無passim. „勿VII. 32， 33， 34， 35， 36; IX. 4， 15; X. 9， 11; XI. 22， 57; XII. 7. „五passim. „伍III. 1. „吾passim. „務II. 15; VIII. 8. „侮VIII. 12. „惡IX. 11; XI. 27， 30. „武IX. 40， 43. „吳XI. 30.* Ya牙XIII. 26.* yai隘X. 1， 8; XI. 9， 45. yang羊XI. 39. „佯VII. 34. „養II. 17; IX. 12; XI. 22， 55. „陽I. 7; IX. 11， 13; X. 3， 10. yao要VII. 32; XIII. 27. yeh也passim. „業VIII. 10. „野XI. 21. „謁XIII. 20. „夜VII. 7， 26; IX. 32: XII. 11. yen焉XI. 23. „言VII. 23; IX. 35; XI. 57. „嚴I. 9; X. 18. „驗XIII. 5. „煙XII. 2. „偃XI. 28. yin引III. 16; X. 7， 11. „陰I. 7; VII. 19; IX. 11. „飮IX. 30. „闉III. 4. „殷XIII. 26.* „因I. 17; II. 9; VI. 26， 31， 33; XII. 2， 5; XIII. passim. ying營IX. 23. „盈X. 8， 9. „嬰X. 25. „應VI. 28; XII. 5， 6. „迎IX. 4， 5， 6， 16， 39. yo約VI. 15; IX. 26; XI. 25. yu有passim. „右VI. 17， 20; IX. 9， 13; XI. 30; XIII. 20. {191}„由VIII. 3; XI. 9， 19. „誘I. 20; VII. 4; IX. 28. „又III. 4; IX. 39. „幽XI. 35. yung用passim. „勇I. 9; IV. 12; V. 17， 18; VII. 25; XI. 28， 32. yü雨IX. 14. „於passim. „予V. 19. „御III. 17. „禦VI. 10; XI. 51. „愚XI. 36. „遇X. 17; XI. 30. „虞III. 17; XI. 19. „豫VII. 12; XI. 52. „迁VII. 3， 4， 22; XI. 9， 37. yü餘IV. 6; VI. 24; XI. 27. „欲III. 17; VI. 11， 12; IX. 5， 14， 19， 38; XIII. 20. „與passim. yüan遠I. 8， 19; II. 10; VI. 20; VII. 31; IX. 3， 16， 19; X. 1， 12， 21. „原II. 13. „捐VII. 6. „圓V. 16， 22， 23. yüeh曰passim. „月III. 4; IV. 10; V. 6; VI. 34. „越VI. 21*; XI. 30*， 43. „悅XII. 20. yün紜V. 16. „輪III. 4. „運XI. 22. Abstract ideas of degree， 50. Accessible ground， 100， 101， 119. Accommodating oneself to the enemy， 145， 148. Adaptation to circumstances， 23. Aides-de-camp， 171. “Aids to Scouting，” quoted， 88， 89， 107， 164. Alliances， 60， 119， 140， 142. Allotments of land， 62. Alps， crossings of the， 57. Amiot， Père， vii， 1. Anger， succeeded by gladness， 159. Army， divisions of the， 17， 33. Army on the march， 140. Arsenals， burning of， 151. “Art of War，” quoted by Han Hsin， 144. Art of war in a nutshell， 44. Athletics， 124. Attack， skill in， 28. Attack and defence， 25， 44. Autumn hair， 29. Baden-Powell， General. See “Aids to Scouting.” Baggage， 58. Baggage-train， 60. Baggage-trains， burning of， 151. Bait， offered by the enemy， 68. Balancing of chances， 31. Banners. See Flags and banners. Bases of supply， 60. Beasts， startled， sign of surprise attack， 89. Belgians at Waterloo， 130. Benevolence to spies， 170. Biot’s Chou Li， ix. Birds rising， sign of ambuscade， 89. Blücher， 48. Bluster， 95. Boers， 18. “Book of Army Management，” 63. Buff-coats， 58. Burning one’s boats， 133. Calamities， six， 105. Calthrop， Capt.: his edition of Sun Tzŭ’s text， xxxii; his translation of Sun Tzŭ， viii; quoted， passim. Camp， shifting， 133. Camping， 80 sqq. Cannae， battle of， 11. Casinum， 140. “Catalogue of Chinese Books，” xxxiv. Chan Kuo Ts‘ê， quoted， 10; referred to， xxiv. Chan Tou Ta Chia Ping Fa， xviii. Chang Ao， a commentator， xlii. Chang Hsiu， 69. Chang Liang， li， 109， 116. Chang Ni， 144. Chang Shang-ying， lii. Chang Shou-chieh， xvi， xvii. Chang Tsai， li. Chang Tzŭ-shang， a commentator， xli. {193}Chang Yü’s commentary on Sun Tzŭ， xl; quoted， 5， 8， 9， 11， 20， 21， 22， 24， 25， 27， 30， 33， 34， 35， 39， 42， 44， 46， 49， 50， 51， 55， 56， 58， 60， 63， 64， 65， 66， 68， 69， 72， 73， 74， 75， 76， 77， 78， 80， 81， 82， 83， 85， 87， 88， 89， 90， 92， 94， 97， 99， 103， 105， 107， 109， 111， 112， 119， 124， 125， 126， 127， 131， 132， 133， 134， 136， 139， 141， 142， 143， 145， 152， 155， 156， 158， 159， 161， 163， 167， 170， 171， 172; referred to， 6， 15， 17， 31， 36， 45， 71， 86， 95， 96， 106， 147， 153， 173. Ch‘ang mountains， 128. Ch‘ang-cho， battle of， 66. Ch‘ang-shê， siege of， 154. Chao State， army of， 28， 143; defeated by Ch‘in， 166; King of， 57. Chao Chan， 106. Chao Kua， xlviii， 166. Chao Shê， famous march of， 57， 136; his use of spies， 166. Chao Yeh， xiv. Chao Ying-ch‘i， 78. Chao Yüan-hao’s rebellion， xli. Ch‘ao Kung-wu， quoted， xxxvi， xxxvii， xxxviii， xl， xli. Chariots， 9， 91. Chariot fighting， 15， 16. Chariot wheels， burying of， 129. Chavannes， M.: his “Mémoires Historiques” referred to， xiii， xvi， xlvi， 57. Ch‘ên Chên-sun， quoted， xxiii. Ch‘ên Hao’s commentary on Sun Tzŭ， xxxvi， xxxviii; quoted， 30， 44， 56， 62， 65， 69， 73， 81， 93， 97， 106， 108， 110， 117， 118， 122， 124， 133， 136， 141， 147， 152， 170， 175; referred to， 18， 68. Ch‘ên-ts‘ang， siege of 94. Chêng， principality of， 104， 116. Chêng and ch‘i. See Tactics， direct and indirect. Chêng Ch‘iao， xl. Chêng Hou， quoted， xliii. Chêng Hsüan’s commentary on the Chou Li， xviii. Chêng Tuan， xlii. Chêng Yu-hsien’s I Shuo， xxxii， xxxiv; referred to， 36， 53， 58， 70， 136. Ch‘êng-an， city of， captured by Han Hsin， 28. Ch‘êng-hung， battle of， 78. Ch‘êng T‘ang， xvi， 173， 175. Chi Hsieh， editor of commentaries on Sun Tzŭ， xxxviii， xli. Chi-mo， siege of， 90. Chi T‘ien-pao’s edition of Sun Tzŭ， xxxi， xxxii， xxxiii， xxxvi， xxxvii. Ch‘i State， xii， xvi， 128. Ch‘i Chieh， 90. Chia Hsü， a commentator， xli. Chia-ku， meeting at， xlvii. Chia Lin’s commentary on Sun Tzŭ， xxxvi， xxxviii; quoted， 20， 30， 34， 46， 50， 57， 72， 75， 76， 86， 92， 94， 95， 97， 117， 120， 133， 143， 148， 152， 157， 175; referred to， 51， 55， 62， 65， 96， 108， 164. Chia Yü， referred to， xlvii. Chiang-ling， town of， 111. Chiang Yüan， a spurious work， lii. Chieh Kuei， the tyrant， 173. Chieh-li， a Turkish Khan， 167. Ch‘ien Ch‘io Lei Shu， liii. Ch‘ien Fu Lun， referred to， xxiv. Ch‘ien Han Shu， quoted 81， 145， 167; referred to， li， 28， 34， 57， 69; bibliographical section of， quoted， xvii， xix， li; referred to， xviii， xx， liii. Ch‘ih Yu， 84. Chin State， xii， xvi， 106. Chin Shu， quoted， 78， 116; referred to， 123， 165. Ch‘in State， 142. China’s experience of war， xliv. Chinese characters， elasticity of， 159. Chinese sentiment opposed to militarism， xliv. Ching， Duke of Ch‘i， xv. {194}Ching-chou Fu， 123. Ching-hsing pass， battle of， 143. Ching K‘o， 127. Ching Wang， period of， xxiii. Chiu T‘ang Shu， referred to， 104， 167; bibliographical section of， referred to， liii. Chou Ch‘in Shih I Tzŭ， text of Sun Tzŭ in， xxxi. Chou dynasty， 174. Chou Hsin， the tyrant， l， 174. Chou Li quoted， 14， 55， 60， 68， 92， 146; referred to， xxxix， xlviii， 64; Biot’s translation of， ix. Chu Chih-wu， xxi. Chu Fu’s edition of Sun Tzŭ， xvii， xxxi. Chu Hsi， corrected by Legge， 32; quoted， xliii， xlvii. Chu-ko Liang， 46， 51， 74， 82， 117， 122; supposititious works of， lii. Chu-ko Wu-hou. See Chu-ko Liang. Ch‘u State， xii， xiii， xvi， 124; the hereditary enemy of Wu， xxvii; Viscount of， 110. Chuan Chu， xxi， 128. Chuan Shê-chu. See Chuan Chu. Chuang， Duke of Lu， 66. Chuang， Prince of Ch‘u， 141， 162. Chuang Tzŭ， referred to， 29， 85. Chung Yung， xix. Circumstances， art of studying， 68. Classics， compared with Sun Tzŭ， xliii. Clearness of orders， 107. Clever fighter， the， 29， 41， 42. Cohesion， 134. Collapse， one of the six calamities， 105， 106. Columns， marching in， 49. Commander， the， 2， 3. See also General. Commander-in-chief， killing the， 145; presence of mind of the， 66. Commentary， native， on Sun Tzŭ， ix， xxxiv sqq. Communications， line of， 101， 119. Compactness， 61. Confucius， and the art of war， xlvi， xlvii， xlviii; contemporary with Sun Tzŭ， xxx; violates extorted oath， xlix. Constellations， 153. Contentious ground， 115， 118， 136. Contraction and expansion， 134. Conventional canons of warfare， 148. Co-operation， 129. Council-chamber， sternness in the， 146. Country， natural features of， 60. Courage， one standard of， 130. Courant’s “Catalogue des Livres Chinois，” lii. Cowardice， 78. Critical ground， 134， 135. Cromwell’s use of spies， 164. Cross-divisions， 100. Cunning， 145. Danger， bracing effect of， 139， 145. Dangerously isolated ground， 72. Deception， war based on， 6， 132. Decision， 37， 38. Deductive calculation， 163. Defence， skill in， 27. Deliberation， 63. Demosthenes， the Athenian general， 118. Desertion， 134， 136. Desperado， running amok， 125. Desperate foe， not to be pressed， 69， 94. Desperate ground， 72， 114， 117， 120， 125， 126， 135， 138， 143. Deviation， artifice of， 57， 63. Difficult ground， 71， 117， 120， 137. Disaffection， signs of， 95. Discipline， 2， 3， 4， 98， 111. Disorder， seeming， 38. Disorganisation， 105， 107. Dispersive ground， 114， 118， 135. Disposition of troops， 26. Dispositions， concealment of， 51， 52; knowledge of the enemy’s， 163. Dissimulation， 61. {195}Dividing the enemy， 47. Divination， to be prohibited， 126. “Divine manipulation of the threads，” 164. Door， left open by the enemy， 147. Doorkeepers， 171. Drums， 34， 64， 65. Dust， sign of the enemy， 89. Earth， as opposed to Heaven， 2， 4， 27， 28， 113; six principles connected with， 104. Economy， false， 162. Energy， 38， 39， 41; concentration of， 124. Entangling ground， 100， 102. Enterprise， the spirit of， 157. Enticing the enemy， 102. Êrh-chu Chao， 138. Êrh Ya， quoted， 94. Excellence， supreme， 17; the acme of， 28. Expenditure on war， 9， 10， 160. Fabius Cunctator， 11， 120. Facile ground， 115， 118， 135， 136. Fan Chü’s use of spies， 166. Fei River， battle of the， 25. Fêng Hou， lii， 84. Fêng I， a student of Sun Tzŭ， xlii. Fire， as an aid to the attack， 156; dropping， 151， 152; five ways of attacking with， 150; material for， 152; proper seasons for attacking with， 152， 153; to be started on the windward side， 155. Five advantages， the， 72， 74， 75. Five cardinal tastes， 36. Five cardinal virtues， 3. Five classes of State ceremonial， xlviii. Five dangerous faults， 77. Five developments in attacking with fire， 153 sqq. Five elements， the， 53. Five essentials for victory， 23， 24. Five factors in war， 1. Five musical notes， 36. Five Pa Wang， xlix， 141. Five primary colours， 36. Flags and banners， 16， 34， 64， 65. Flat country， campaigning in， 83， 84. Flight， 105. Foraging， 12， 15， 123， 161. Foreknowledge， 163. Forestalling the enemy， 147. Forethought， want of， 97. “Forty-one Years in India，” referred to， 35. Four seasons， the， 54. Frederick the Great， quoted， 48， 168， 169. Frontier passes， 146. Frontal attacks， 45. Fu Ch‘ai， xvi. Fu Chien， 25， 115. Fu-ch‘u， King of Ch‘u， 124. Fu Kai， xxiii， xxix. Fu-k‘ang-an， 63. Fu Yen-ch‘ing， 69， 70. General， the， 4， 5， 7， 8， 15， 16， 19， 21， 44， 55， 66， 77， 98， 107， 109， 110， 130， 131， 134， 157， 159， 163， 171， 174. Generals， professional， xxii. Generalship， degrees of， 17， 18; the highest， 48. Giles’ Biographical Dictionary， quoted， 128. Giles’ Chinese-English Dictionary， referred to， 57， 134. Gongs， 34， 64. Grant， General， 47. Great Wall of China， xliv. Greeks， Homeric， 9. Grindstone and egg， 35. Ground， high and low， 84; of intersecting highways， 71， 116， 119， 135， 137; proper use of， 130. Grounds， the nine， 114， 134， 138. Guides， local， 60， 140. Han， red banners of， 144. Han Chih. See Ch‘ien Han Shu， bibliographical section of. {196}Han Kuan Chieh Ku， quoted， xx. Han Hsin， xliv， 28， 33， 34， 81， 143， 167; a student of Sun Tzŭ， xlii; quoted， 68. Han Shu. See Ch‘ien Han Shu. Hannibal， 11， 57， 66， 120， 140. Hasty temper， 78. Hearing， quick， 29. Heaven， 2， 4. 28， 113. Heights， precipitous， 100， 103. Hemmed-in ground， 72， 117， 120， 135， 137. Henderson， Col.， quoted， 6， 42， 48， 52， 59， 101， 130， 131. Herodotus， referred to， 129. Ho Ch‘ü-fei， xl. Ho Kuan Tzŭ， referred to， xxiv. Ho Lu (or Ho Lü)， King of Wu， xi， xiii， xvi， xvii， xviii， xxvi， 5， 128. Ho Shih. See Ho Yen-hsi. Ho-yang， night ride to， 65. Ho Yen-hsi’s commentary on Sun Tzŭ， xl; quoted， 11， 14， 16， 18， 21， 29， 30， 34， 56， 69， 74， 110， 115， 116， 122， 147， 165， 166， 167， 168， 174; referred to， xvii， 31， 43， 62， 152. Horses， tethering of， 129. Hou Han Shu， quoted， 10， 94， 132， 139， 151， 155; referred to， xlii. Hsi， the graduate， xxxiii. Hsia dynasty， 174. Hsiang， Duke of Sung， xlix， 141. Hsiang Chi， xlix， 133. Hsiang Liang， xlix. Hsiang Yü. See Hsiang Chi. Hsiao State， 110. Hsiao Chi， a commentator， xli. Hsiao Hsien， 123. Hsiao I， 153， 166. Hsiao Shih-hsien. See Hsiao I. Hsieh An， 25. Hsieh Yüan， a commentator， xlii. Hsien Hu， 106. Hsin-ch‘êng， town of， 122. Hsin Hsü， xiv. Hsin Shu (by Ts‘ao Kung)， xix， xxxvi. Hsin Shu (a work attributed to Chu-ko Liang)， lii. Hsin T‘ang Shu， referred to， 65， 104， 105， 123， 167; bibliographical section of， referred to， xviii， liii. Hsing Li Hui Yao， quoted， xliii， xlviii. Hsing Shih Pien Chêng Shu， xv. Hsiung-nu， 39， 139， 150. Hsü Ch‘ieh， quoted， 160. Hsü-chou， invaded by Ts‘ao Ts‘ao， 73. Hsü Wên Hsien T‘ung K‘ao， liii. Hsüan Tsung， T‘ang Emperor， xxxii. Hsün Tzŭ， quoted， 80. Hsün Ying， 73. Hu Yen， xiii. Hua-pi， city of， 73. Hua-yin temple， xxxii. Huai-nan Tzŭ， plagiary of Sun Tzŭ， xxiv; quoted， xiv. Huan， Duke of Ch‘i， 128， 141. Huan Ch‘ung， 25. Huan Hsüan， 78. Huang Ch‘ao Ching Shih Wên Pien， liii. Huang Chih-chêng， a commentator， xlii. Huang Jun-yü， a commentator， xli. Huang Mei， 78. Huang-shih Kung， li; quoted， 109， 126. Huang Ti. See Yellow Emperor. Huang-fu Sung， 94， 154， 155. Human nature， to be studied， 134. Humanity， misplaced， xlix; soldiers to be treated with， 98. Husbanding one’s strength， 67. Husbandry， impeded by war， 161. I river， 127. I Chih， 173， 174， 175. I Ching， quoted， xv. I-chou， 165. I-ho， 115. I Pu Chê Chung， xliii. I Shuo. See Chêng Yu-hsien. I-wu pass， 115. {197}I Yin. See I Chih. Iliad， heroes of the， 127. Impoverishment of the people， 13， 14. Induction from experience， 163. Inhumanity， the height of， 162. Insubordination， 105. Intuition necessary in dealing with spies， 169. Invading force， principles to be observed by an， 123. Jackson， Stonewall， 59， 131. Jan Yu， disciple of Confucius， xlvi， xlviii. Jang， siege of， 69. Jingles， 149， 158. Ju-nan， 111. Julius Caesar， 12; his “De Bello Gallico” referred to， 108. Junction of forces， 48. K‘ang Hsi’s dictionary， referred to， 10， 18， 35， 68， 95， 117， 152， 157， 160. Kao-ch‘ang， 115. Kao-fan. See Hu Yen. Kao Huan， afterwards Emperor， 137. Kao Kêng， 151. Kao Tsu， first Han Emperor， 33， 39， 119. Kao Tsu， Sui Emperor， 168. Kao-wu pass， 115. Khitans， 69. Khotan， 132. Kiangnan rebels under Sui dynasty， 151. Kindness to the soldiers， 110， 111. Kou Chien， King of Yüeh， xvi， 50. Ku Chin T‘u Shu Chi Ch‘êng， quoted， xvi， xxxvii， xxxix; referred to， xix， xli， li， liii. See also Sun Tzŭ， T‘u Shu text of. Kuan Chung， 128. Kuan Tzŭ， xxi. Kuang， King of Shan-shan， 139， 151. Kuang Po Wu Chih， liii. Kuang Wu， Han Emperor， li. Kuei-ku Tzŭ， li. K‘uei-chou， 123. K‘un Wai Ch‘un Ch‘iu， xxxvi. Kung-sun Hung， lii. Kuo Ch‘ao Shih Jên Chêng Lüeh， xxxii. Kuo Hsün， 151. Kutcha， King of， 132. Ladder， kicking away the， 133. Ladysmith， relief of， 79. Land-tenure， ancient system of， xxv， 161. Lao Tzŭ， the Tao of， 2; quoted， 155， 158. See also Tao Tê Ching. Legge’s “Chinese Classics，” referred to， ix， xxiv， 23， 32. Lengthy operations， 10， 11. Li， length of the， 9. Li Chi， referred to， 23， 147. Li Ching， the general， xliv， 41， 123， 167; quoted， 35， 66， 87， 111， 118; supposed author of a work on war， lii. Li Ching Ping Fa， lii. Li Chu， 29. Li Ch‘üan’s commentary on Sun Tzŭ， xxxvi; quoted， 9， 11， 18， 21， 22， 24， 25， 28， 30， 32， 34， 38， 46， 49， 50， 51， 55， 60， 65， 67， 68， 72， 73， 81， 83， 84， 89， 92， 97， 105， 106， 110， 113， 114， 115， 117， 118， 119， 136， 142， 150， 158， 163， 167; referred to， 52， 95， 123， 127， 151. Li Hsiang， 165. Li Hsiung， 165. Li I-chi， 167. Li Kuang-pi， 65. Li Ling， 154. Li Shih-min， afterwards the Emperor T‘ai Tsung， xliv， lii， 35， 104， 167. Li Shou-chêng， 70. Li Tai Chi Shih Nien Piao， quoted， 70， 116， 166. Li T‘ê， 165. Li Ts‘ai， a commentator， xlii. Li Wei-kung. See Li Ching. {198}Li Wei Kung Wên Tui， lii. Liang， kingdom of， 94. Liang-chou， 115. Liang Hsi， 115. Lien P‘o， 57， 166. Lin-chin， in Shensi， 34. Lin Hsiang-ju， 166. Line of least resistance， 53. Liu Chou-tzŭ， 53. Liu Hsiang， quoted， xiv， xxiv. Liu Pei， 59. Liu Piao， 69. Liu T‘ao (attributed to T‘ai Kung)， xxi， l， li， 144， 174; quoted， 22， 62， 78， 84. Liu Yü， 78. Livy， quoted， 66， 120， 140. Lo Shang， 165. Lo-yang， 104. Logs and stones， rolling， 41. Longevity， 127. Lou Ching， 39. Lu State， 128. Lu Tê-ming， quoted， li. Lü Kuang， 115. Lü Mêng， a disciplinarian， 111; a student of Sun Tzŭ， xlii. Lü Pu， xxxv. Lü Shang， known as T‘ai Kung， l， 174， 175. See also Liu T‘ao. Lü Shih Ch‘un Ch‘iu， referred to， xxiv， 37. Lü Wang (or Lii Ya). See Lü Shang. Luan Yen， 106. Lun Yü， quoted， xv， 146; referred to， xlvii， xlix， 47， 64， 156. Lung Chü， 81. Ma Lung， lii. Ma Tuan-lin， xl. See also Wên Hsien T‘ung K‘ao. Ma Yüan， 80. Maiden， coyness of a， 148. Mansfield， Lord， 143. Mantlets， 14， 18. Marches， forced， 59. Marengo， battle of， 57. “Marshal Turenne，” quoted， 73， 169; referred to， 61. Marshes， 60. Measures， of land， 14; of length， 32; of weight， 15， 32. Mei Yao-ch‘ên’s commentary on Sun Tzŭ， xxxviii; quoted， 4， 6， 7， 11， 29， 34， 38， 40， 44， 47， 61， 63， 79， 84， 85， 86， 93， 94， 95， 96， 100， 102， 121， 129， 130， 131， 135， 136， 137， 138， 141， 145， 147， 148， 153， 155， 157， 161， 162， 163， 164， 168， 169， 170， 174; referred to， 15， 23， 43， 46， 51， 106， 151. “Mémoires concernant les Chinois，” quoted， vii. “Mémoires Historiques，” referred to， xvi. See also Chavannes. Mencius， quoted， xxv， xliii， 14， 85; referred to， 29， 32， 112， 148. Mêng K‘ang， xxxvi. Mêng Shih’s commentary on Sun Tzŭ， xxxvi; quoted， 2， 11， 15， 61， 77， 78， 116， 137， 147. Mêng Ta， 122. Method， 2， 3， 31. “Military Classic，” 144. Military tactics like water， 53. Military virtues， 22. Misfortune， three ways in which a ruler can cause， 21 sqq. Mistakes， making no， 30. Modern text of Sun Tzŭ. See Sun Tzŭ. Modification of plans， 5. Moltke， 17. Moods， art of studying， 67. Moral Law， the， 2， 4， 31. Mounds， used in sieges， 19. Mountains， 80. Movable shelters， 18. Mu， Duke of Ch‘in， 141. Mu-so， an instrument of torture， xlvi. Mu T‘ien Tzŭ Chuan， 152. Mystification of one’s men， 131. Nang Wa， xiii. {199}Napoleon Bonaparte， 5， 12， 148; his passage across Alps， 57; not hampered by central authority， 24; his “Maximes de Guerre，” quoted， 84， 109; his “Pensées，” quoted， 101. Nelson， at Trafalgar， 37. Nervousness， a sign of， 93. Nicias， the Athenian general， 118; speech of， quoted， 125. Night-fighting， 65. Nine grounds (or situations)， the， 72， 114. Nine punitive measures， the， xxxix. Nine variations， the， 71， 72， 74， 138. “North hill”， battle of the， 57. O-yü， town of， 57. Omens， not to be regarded， 126. Onset of troops， 37， 38. Open ground， 116， 119， 137. Opportunism， xlix. Orders， not to be divulged， 142， 143. Original text of Sun Tzŭ. See Sun Tzŭ. Ou-yang Hsiu， quoted， xxxiv， xxxv， xxxviii. Overawing the enemy， 141. Over-caution， 158. Over-solicitude for one’s men， 79. Pa Chên T‘u， xviii. Pa Wang， the five， 141. Pan Ch‘ao， 63; at Shan-shan， 139， 150; his attack on Yarkand， 132， 167. P‘an Kêng， 173. P‘ang Chüan， xii， 40. Passes， narrow， 100， 103. Peace， the true object of war， 162. Pei Ch‘i Shu， referred to， 138. Pei Lun， xl. Pei T‘ang Shu Ch‘ao， 25， 36， 64， 67. P‘ei Hsing-chien， 103. P‘ei Wên Yün Fu， quoted， 94; referred to， xlvi， 69， 146. Pelliot， M.， xxxvi. Pi， battle of， 106. Pi I-hsün， xviii， xxvi， xxxiv. See also Sun Tzŭ Hsü Lu. Pi Kua， xxxiii. Pi-yang， city of， 73. P‘i， siege of， 165. Picked soldiers in front rank， 107， 108. Ping Fa Tsa Chan， xviii. Ping Shu Yao Chüeh， 67. Pique， battles not to be fought out of， 158. Pitfalls， 60. Plagiaries of Sun Tzŭ， xxiii， xxiv. Plans， baulking the enemy’s， 17; change of， 5， 132. Plataea， battle of， 129. Playfair’s “Cities and Towns of China”， referred to. 57. Plunder， 62. Po Ch‘i xliv， 117， 166. Po Chiang Chuan， xli. Po P‘ei， xiii， xxiii， xxix. Po-têng， battle of， 39. Po-ts‘ai， a leader of the Yellow Turban rebels， 154. Po Ya， referred to， 160. P‘o-t‘ai， a spy， 165. Polybius， referred to， 120. Port Arthur， siege of， 19. Presence of mind， 66. Punishment， 95， 97， 98. Rabbits， not indigenous to China， 149. Rapidity， 12， 61; the essence of war， 122. Rewards， 15， 95， 142. Reward and punishment， constancy in， 4. Riches， soldiers not to acquire， 127. River， crossing a， 129. River warfare， 81， 82. Roberts， Lord， night march of， 35; on Sun Tzŭ， xlii. Rout， 105， 107. Ruin， one of the six calamities， 105， 106. {200}Ruler， military commander independent of the， 109; the enlightened， 157， 159， 174. Rules of warfare， conventional， 148. Salt-marshes， 83. San Kuo Chih， quoted， 69， 111; referred to， xxxv， xli， xlii. See also Wei Chih. San Lüeh， li; quoted， 62， 158. San Shih Êrh Lei Ching， xviii. San Ts‘ai T‘u Hui， liii. San-yüan， 79. “Science of War，” quoted， 101， 130. Scouts， 88， 89. Screens， grass， 88. Secrecy， 45， 131. Secrets， divulged by a spy， 170. Sedan， capitulation of， 17. Self-possession， 67. Sensitiveness in a general， 79. Sentries， 171. Serious ground， 117， 119， 135， 137. Seven considerations， 1， 4. Sha-yüan， 168. Shan-shan， 139; King of， 150， 151. Shang dynasty， 173. Shên， Duke of， 110. Shên-wu of Ch‘i， 168. Shên Yu， a commentator， xli. Shepherd driving sheep， 133. Sheridan， General， 47. Shih Chi， objection to the chronology of， xxvi; quoted， xi， xiii， xv， xx， xlv， 40， 58， 80， 84， 90， 124， 128; referred to， xvi， xxii， xxiv， xxxiv， xlvi， xlvii， xlix， 1. See also Ssŭ-ma Ch‘ien. Shih Ching， quoted， xvi， 61， 62; referred to， 14. Shih Huang Ti， 127， 142. Shih K‘uang， 29. Shih L‘iu Ts‘ê， lii. Shih Ssŭ-ming， the rebel leader， 65. Shu Ching， quoted， xv; referred to， xlvii， xlviii. Shu Lu Chieh T‘i， xxiii. Shuai-jan， the， xxvi， 128， 129. Shuo Wên， quoted， 94， 117， 160. Sicilian expedition， 118. Sieges， 10， 18， 19， 73. Sight， sharp， 29. Signal-fires， 65. Signals， 33. Signs， observation of， 88. Situations， the nine. See Nine grounds. Six Chancellors of the Ch‘in State， 142. “Six States” period， xxii. Skilful fighter， the， 30. Skilful leaders of old， 120. Solidarity of troops， 123. Sôphanes at Plataea， 129. Sovereign， the， 55; the wise， 163. Spies， xlix， 52， 147， 148; converted， 90， 166， 172， 173; doomed， 167， 172， 173; five classes of， 164; Frederick’s classification of， 168; importance of， 175; intimate relations to be maintained with， 168; inward， 165， 172; local， 164， 172; surviving， 167， 172; to be properly paid， 162， 169. Spirit， an army’s， 65， 66. Spirits， 163. “Spy，” evolution of the character meaning， 160. Spying， end and aim of， 173. Ssŭ K‘u Ch‘üan Shu Chien Ming Mu Lu， quoted， l， li， lii. Ssŭ K‘u Ch‘üan Tsung Mu T‘i Yao， quoted， xx， xli， l; referred to， xl， lii， liii. Ssŭ-ma Ch‘ien， xiv， xx; quoted， xi， xii， xlv; credibility of his narrative， xxvi; his letter to Jên An， referred to， xlvi; his mention of the 13 chapters， xxx. See also Shih Chi. Ssŭ-ma Fa， l; quoted， xvi， 14， 17， 78， 126， 143. Ssŭ-ma I， 46， 51， 122. Ssŭ-ma Jang-chü， xxii， 1， 98. Stagnation， 157. Standard text of Sun Tzŭ. See Sun Tzŭ. {201}Stellar Mansions， the twenty-eight， 153. Stonewall Jackson， biography of， quoted， 42， 59， 131. Strategy and tactics， 52. Strength， great， 29. Stupidity， to be feigned， 145. Su Hsün， quoted， xlii. Su Shu， an ethical treatise， li. Subdivisions of an army. 17， 33， 39. Sui Shu， quoted， 151; bibliographical section of， quoted， xviii， xli; referred to， xxxvi， liii. Sun Hao， a commentator， xli. Sun Hsing-yen， xxxii; his edition of Sun Tzŭ， ix; his preface， xxxiv; quoted， xvi， xxix， xxx， xxxi， xxxii， xxxiii， xxxvi， xlviii. Sun Pin， xii， xv， xvi， 40. Sun Tzŭ， archaic words in， xxiv; bibliographical description of edition used， xxxiv; corruptions in the text of， xxxi; difficult passages in， xxxiv; state of the text， 138; probable date of the work， xxviii. —Modern text， 25， 26， 27， 33. —Original text， xxxii， xxxiii， 2， 16， 27， 29， 43， 47， 53， 58， 62， 64， 67， 84， 86， 87， 88， 91， 92， 95， 98， 113， 119， 121， 153， 154， 168. —Standard text， xxxiv， 10， 58， 91， 95， 117， 127， 164. —T‘ai I Tun Chia text， xxxvi. —T‘u Shu text， xxxi， 16， 21， 25， 29， 30， 32， 33， 35， 37， 40， 43， 46， 47， 50， 52， 58， 64， 67， 69， 84， 87， 91， 92， 94， 95， 96 105， 110， 114， 117， 120， 121， 133， 135， 140， 145， 146， 153， 159， 164， 167， 168， 171， 172， 175. —T‘ung Tien text， xxxiii， 1， 10， 12， 19， 22， 23， 25， 41， 45， 47， 50， 53， 58， 59， 62， 64， 65， 67， 68， 74， 77， 81， 83， 85， 86， 87， 88， 89， 91， 92， 93， 94， 95， 98， 101， 104， 108， 112， 113， 117， 119， 136， 137， 152， 153， 158， 159， 164， 167， 170， 171， 172. —Yü Lan text， xxxiii， 3， 7， 10， 12， 14， 15， 19， 25， 27， 37， 42， 45， 47， 50， 52， 53， 62， 64， 67， 68， 77， 81， 83， 84， 85， 86， 87， 88， 89， 92， 93， 94， 95， 98， 108， 112， 121， 129， 141， 153， 158， 159， 161， 164， 167， 170， 171， 172. Sun Tzŭ Hsü Lu， xviii， xxxiv; quoted， xxiii， xxiv， 118. Sun Tzŭ Hui Chêng， xlii. Sun Tzŭ Ts‘an T‘ung， xlii. Sun Tzŭ Wên Ta， xvii. Sun Wu， a practical soldier， xxv; conjectural outline of his life， xxix; not a man of eminent position， xxviii; probable origin of the legend connected with， xxix; Ssŭ-ma Ch‘ien’s biography of， xi; supposititious works of， xvii， xviii. See also Sun Tzŭ. Sun Wu Sun Tzŭ， xvii. Sung Shih， referred to， xlii; bibliographical section of， xvii， xxxi， xxxvi， lii， liii. Superstitious doubts， 126. Supplies， 137， 161: line of， 101. Ta-hsi Wu， 168. Ta Ming I T‘ung Chih， quoted， xxxii. Taboo character， 124. Tactical manœuvring， 56. Tactician， the skilful， 128. Tactics， direct and indirect， 20， 34 sqq.; modification of， 52， 53; not to be repeated， 52; variation of， 26， 71， 74. T‘ai Kung. See Lü Shang. T‘ai Kung Ping Fa， li. T‘ai P‘ing Yü Lan， xvi， xxxiii， liii. See also Sun Tzŭ， Yü Lan text. T‘ai-po Shan-jên， quoted， 132. T‘ai Po Yin Ching， xxxvi. T‘ai Tsung， the Emperor. See Li Shih-min. T‘ai Yüan Ching， referred to， xxiv. Tallies， official， 146. {202}T‘ang， prince of， xiii. T‘ang， the Completer. See Ch‘êng T’ang. T‘ang Chien， 167. T‘ang Shu， bibliographical section of， referred to， xxxviii， xli. See also Hsin T‘ang Shu and Chiu T‘ang Shu. Tao Tê Ching， quoted， xlix， 147， 155， 158， 161. Temple， used for deliberations， 7， 8. Temporising ground， 100， 102. Tenacity， 125. Têng Ch‘iang， 78. Têng Ming-shih， quoted， xv. Terrain， natural advantages of， 108; six kinds of， 100. Textual criticism and emendations， 1， 7， 13， 14， 25， 29， 30， 36， 41， 43， 46， 47， 49， 71， 74， 86， 87， 91， 94， 99， 113， 117， 121， 124， 127， 133， 158， 167. Thermopylae， 115. Three ancient dynasties， the， xxxix. Thucydides， quoted， 125; referred to， 118. Ti river， 144. T‘ien Chi， 40. T‘ien-i-ko catalogue， quoted， xxxvi， xl. T‘ien Pao， xv. T‘ien Pu， 105. T‘ien Tan， defender of Chi-mo， 90， 120， 155; his use of spies， 166. Time， value of， 12; waste of， 157. Tou Chien-tê， King of Hsia， 104. Tou Ku， 151. Trafalgar， battle of， 37. Training of officers and men， 4. Trebia， battle of the， 66. Ts‘ai， prince of， xiii. Ts‘ao Kuei， mentioned in the Tso Chuan， xxi; on the advantage of spirit， 66; threatens Huan Kung， 128. Ts‘ao Kung or Ts‘ao Ts‘ao， xix， xxxi， xxxvi， xlii， xliv， 4， 59， 69， 76， 151; his commentary on Sun Tzŭ， xxxv， xxxvii， xxxviii， xl; quoted， 1， 7， 9， 11， 13， 15， 17， 18， 20， 22， 24， 26， 28， 34， 35， 39， 40， 41， 44， 46， 51， 52， 55， 56， 59， 60， 67， 71， 73， 75， 76， 77， 78， 81， 84， 86， 88， 91， 94， 95， 96， 97， 98， 103， 104， 106， 111， 115， 116， 118， 119， 120， 122， 125， 126， 127， 131， 137， 140， 142， 143， 145， 146， 147， 148， 152， 154， 156， 157; referred to， 19， 43， 62， 136; his preface， xx， xxxiv; translated， xv sqq. Tsêng Shên， xxiv. Tso Chuan， delivered to Wu Ch‘i， xxiv; has no mention of Sun Tzŭ， xx， xxvi， xxviii; quoted， xxvii， xxix， xlix， 19， 59， 65， 89， 97， 106， 111， 162; referred to， xxi， xlvii. Tso Tsung-t‘ang， 63. Tsui-li， battle of， xxx. Tu Chung-wei， 69， 70. Tu Mu’s commentary on Sun Tzŭ， xxxvi， xxxvii， xxxviii; quoted， 4， 11， 14， 15， 18， 19， 23， 26， 28， 29， 30， 31， 33， 34， 37， 39， 40， 41， 42， 44， 45， 46， 50， 52， 55， 56， 57， 59， 60， 61， 62， 64， 67， 68， 69， 75， 76， 77， 78， 80， 81， 82， 83， 84， 86， 88， 89， 90， 92， 93， 94， 95， 96， 98， 101， 105， 106， 107， 110， 111， 112， 114， 115， 118， 119， 122， 124， 126， 131， 133， 136， 137， 138， 146， 148， 149， 151， 152， 153， 154， 155， 156， 157， 158， 161， 163， 164， 165， 167， 168， 169， 171， 175; referred to， 20， 65， 73， 150; his preface， quoted， xix， xxxvii， xxxviii， xlv. Tu Shu Chih， lii. Tu Yu， xxxiii; his notes on Sun Tzŭ in the T‘ung Tien， xxxvii; quoted， 4， 6， 11， 19， 23， 24， 36， 38， 47， 56， 60， 61， 62， 77， 83， 88， 91， 92， 93， 94， 95， 100， 101， 102， 103， 104， 116， 117， 120， 137， 138， 152， 153， 166， 167， 169， 171， 172; referred to， 28， 51， 74， 155， 173. {203}T‘u Shu encyclopaedia. See Ku Chin T‘u Shu Chi Ch‘êng. —Text of Sun Tzŭ in the. See Sun Tzŭ. Tung Cho， xxxv， 94. T‘ung Chou Lieh Kuo， quoted， 56. T‘ung Chih， referred to， xxxii， xxxvi， xl， xli， liii. T‘ung Tien， xvii， xxxiii， xxxvii， lii， liii. See also Tu Yu. —Text of Sun Tzŭ in the. See Sun Tzŭ. Turenne， Marshal， on deceiving the enemy， 61; on sieges， 73; on spies， 169. Tzŭ-ch‘an， saying of， xlix. Tzŭ-ch‘ang. See Nang Wa. “Unterricht des Königs von Preussen，” quoted， 168， 169. Uxbridge， Lord， 5. Valleys， 80. Victory， halfway towards， 111， 112; without fighting， 17. Virtues， the five cardinal， 3. Wan， town of， 122. Wang Chien， 124. Wang Hsi’s commentary on Sun Tzŭ， xl; quoted， 1， 2， 11， 13， 14， 23， 26， 33， 34， 38， 44， 52， 53， 55， 60， 61， 63， 71， 78， 84， 92， 94， 95， 96， 106， 114， 117， 119， 124， 132， 133， 135， 137， 142， 155， 157， 169; referred to， 67， 76. Wang Kuo， the rebel， 94. Wang Liao， 128. Wang Ling， a commentator， xxxvii， xli. See also Wang Tzŭ. Wang Shih-ch‘ung， 104. Wang T‘ing-ts‘ou， 105. Wang Tzŭ， quoted， 4， 6， 24. Wang-tzŭ Ch‘eng-fu， xiii. War， want of fixity in， 54. Warlike prince， 141， 158. Water， an aid to the attack， 156. Waterloo， battle of， 5， 48， 130. Weapons， 14. Weeping， 127. Wei， kingdom of， xxxv; province of， 105. Wei river， 81. Wei Chih (in the San Kuo Chih)， xix， xxxvi. Wei I， 106. Wei Liao Tzŭ， li; quoted， 35， 73， 97， 99， 107， 125; referred to， xxiv. Wei Po， 165. Wei Wu Ti. See Ts‘ao Kung. Well-being of one’s men， to be studied， 123. Wellington， his description of his army at Waterloo， 130; on the eve of Waterloo， 5; saying， of， 110; skilful in dissimulation， 6. Wên， Duke of Chin， 141. Wên Hsien T‘ung K‘ao， quoted， xxxvii， xxxviii， xl， xli; referred to， xxi， xxiii， xxxvi， liii. Wên-su， King of， 132. Wên Ti， Emperor of Sui dynasty， 151. Wên Wang， l， 174. Western Sacred Mountain， xxxii. Wind， days of， 153; duration of， 155. “Words on Wellington，” quoted， 5. Wu， city of， xiv; king of， 118. See also Ho Lu. Wu State， xxv， 49， 50， 129， 159; dates in the history of， xxvii， xxviii; first mentioned in history， xxvii. Wu Ch‘i， l， 64， 65， 110; compared with Sun Wu， xliii; plagiary of Sun Tzŭ， xxiv. See also Wu Tzŭ. Wu Ch‘i Ching， lii. Wu Huo， 29. Wu Jên-chi， xxxiii. Wu-lao， heights of， 104. Wu Nien-hu， xxxiii. Wu-tu， town of， 165. Wu-tu Ch‘iang， 80. Wu Tzŭ， xix， l; quoted， 24， 56， 66， 77， 80， 81， 98， 107， 115， 131， 142， 156; referred to， xxiv. {204}Wu Tzŭ-Hsü， xxix， xlviii. See also Wu Yüan. Wu Wang， xvi， 20， 175. Wu Yüan， xiii， xxiii， 56; a spurious treatise fathered on， xxix. Wu Yüeh Ch‘un Ch‘iu， quoted， xiv， xviii. Wylie’s “Notes，” referred to， xli， lii. Ya， King of Chao， 144. Yang Han， 115. Yang-p‘ing， city of， 46. Yangtsze river， 123. Yao Hsiang， 78. Yarkand， battle of， 132. Yeh Shih or Yeh Shui-hsin， his theory about Sun Tzŭ， xxi， xxiii， xxv; on Sun Tzŭ’s style， xxiv. Yellow Emperor， the， xvi， 84. Yellow Turban rebels， 154. Yen， King of Hsü， xvi， xlix. Yen Shih-ku， 167. Yen Ti， 84. Yen Tzŭ， quoted， 98. Yin and Yang， 2. Yin dynasty， 173， 174. Yin Fu Ching， xxxvi， 111. Ying， capital of Ch‘u， xii， xiii， xvi， xxix. Ying K‘ao-shu， xxi. Yo Fei， a student of Sun Tzŭ， xlii. Yo I， 117. Yü Hai， quoted， xlii; referred to， xxxvi， xl， lii， liii. Yü Lan encyclopaedia. See T‘ai P‘ing Yü Lan. —Text of Sun Tzŭ in the. See Sun Tzŭ. Yüan， the two， opponents of Ts‘ao Ts‘ao， xxxv. Yüan Chien Lei Han， liii. Yüan Shao， 151. Yüeh State， 129; compared with Wu， xxvi， 49， 50; first mentioned in history， xxvii. Yüeh Chüeh Shu， quoted， xiv. Yüeh Yü， xxi. Yung Lo Ta Tien， lii.

[Transcriber’s note: the corrigenda listed below has been incorporated into the text.]探花 porn

P. ix， note: For “edition” read “translation.” „ 14， line 3: For “by” read “in the.” „ 16， line 5: For “T.” read “T‘u Shu.” „ „ § 19， note: Before “War” insert “Soldiers are not to be used as playthings.” „ 17， § 1: 全軍， etc. The more I think about it， the more I prefer the rendering suggested on p. 159， § 22， note. „ „ § 1 note， and p. 78， line 6: Insert “the” before “Ssŭ-ma Fa.” „ 33， note on heading: Cf. X. § 12， where 勢 is translated “strength，” though it might also be “conditions.” The three words 執， 埶 and 勢 have been much confused. It appears from the Shuo Wên that the last character is post-classical， so that Sun Tzŭ must have used either 執 or 埶 in all senses. „ 45， line 1: For “sublety” read “subtlety.” „ 63， line 4: M. Chavannes writes in the T‘oung Pao， 1906， p. 210: “Le général Pan Tch‘ao n’a jamais porté les armes chinoises jusque sur les bords de la mer Caspienne.” I hasten to correct my statement on this authority. „ 80， 9th line from the bottom: For 囗 read 口. „ 109， § 23， note， and p. 126， 5th line from bottom: For “Huang Shih-kung” read “Huang-shih Kung.” „ 124， line 7: For “Ch‘ên” read “Ch‘ên Hao.” „ 136， 11th line from bottom: Insert “to” before “select.” „ 152， § 2: Substitute semi-colon for full stop after “available.” [1] Published at Paris in 1782. [2] A rather distressing Japanese flavour pervades the work throughout. Thus， King Ho Lu masquerades as “Katsuryo，” Wu and Yüeh become “Go” and “Etsu，” etc. etc. [3] A notable exception is to be found in Biot’s translation of the Chou Li. [4] Shih Chi， ch. 65. [5] Also written 闔閭 Ho Lü. He reigned from 514 to 496 B.C. [6] Shih Chi， ch. 130， f. 6 ro. [7] I note that M. Chavannes translates 民勞 “le peuple est épuisé.” But in Sun Tzŭ’s own book (see especially VII §§ 24–26) the ordinary meaning of 民 is “army，” and this， I think， is more suitable here. [8] These words are given also in Wu Tzŭ-hsü’s biography， ch. 66， fol. 3 ro. [9] The appellation of 囊瓦 Nang Wa. [10] Shih Chi， ch. 31， fol. 6 ro. [11] Ibid. ch. 25， fol. 1 ro. [12] The appellation of 狐偃 Hu Yen， mentioned in ch. 39 under the year 637. [13] 王子城父 Wang-tzŭ Ch‘êng-fu， ch. 32， year 607. [14] The mistake is natural enough. Native critics refer to the 越絶書， a work of the Han dynasty， which says (ch. 2， fol. 3 vo of my edition): 巫門外大冢吳王客齊孫武冢也去縣十里善爲兵法 “Ten li outside the Wu gate [of the city of 吳 Wu， now Soochow in Kiangsu] there is a great mound， raised to commemorate the entertainment of Sun Wu of Ch‘i who excelled in the art of war， by the King of Wu.” [15] 孫子者吳东谈主也善爲兵法辟幽居众东谈主莫知其能. [16] 君臣乖心則孫子不行以應敵. [17] 孫武以三萬破楚二十萬者楚無法故也. [18] The Shih Chi， on the other hand， says: 臏亦孫武之後世子孫也. I may remark in passing that the name 武 for one who was a great warrior is just as suspicious as 臏 for a man who had his feet cut off. [19] An allusion to 易經， 繫辭， II. 2: 弦木爲弧剡木爲矢弧矢之利以威六合 “They attached strings to wood to make bows， and sharpened wood to make arrows. The use of bows and arrows is to keep the Empire in awe.” [20] 論語 XII. 7. [21] 書經 V. iv. 7. [22] 易經， 7th diagram (師). [23] 詩經 III. 1. vii. 5. [24] 司馬法 ch. 1 (仁本) ad init. The text of the passage in the 圖書 T‘u Shu (戎政典， ch. 85) is: 是故殺东谈主安东谈主殺之可也. [25] The son and successor of Ho Lu. He was finally defeated and overthrown by 勾踐 Kou Chien， King of Yüeh， in 473 B.C. See post. [26] King Yen of 徐 Hsü， a fabulous being， of whom Sun Hsing-yen says in his preface: 仁而敗 “His humanity brought him to destruction.” See Shih Chi ch. 5， f. 1 vo and M. Chavannes’ note， Mémoires Historiques， tom. II， p. 8. [27] T‘u Shu， ibid. ch. 90: 操聞上古有弧矢之利論語曰足兵尙書八政曰師易曰師貞丈东谈主吉詩曰王赫斯怒爰征其旅黃帝湯武咸用干戚以濟世也司馬法曰东谈主故殺东谈主殺之可也恃武者滅恃文者一火夫差偃王是也聖东谈主之用兵戢而時動不得俄顷用之. [28] The passage I have put in brackets is omitted in the T‘u Shu， and may be an interpolation. It was known， however， to 張守節 Chang Shou-chieh of the T‘ang dynasty， and appears in the T‘ai P‘ing Yü Lan. [29] Ts‘ao Kung seems to be thinking of the first part of chap. II， perhaps especially of § 8. [30] 吾觀兵書戰策多矣孫武所著深矣孫子者齊东谈主也名武爲吳王闔閭作兵法一十三篇試之婦东谈主卒以爲將西破强楚入郢北威齊晉後百歲餘有孫臏是武之後也審計重舉明畫深圖不可相誣而但众东谈主未之深亮訓說況文煩富行於世者失其旨要故撰爲略解焉. [31] 漢書藝文志，兵權謀. [32] The 宋藝文志 mentions two editions of Sun Tzŭ in 3 chüan， namely 孫武孫子 and 朱服校定孫子. [33] See chap. XI. [34] 吳王召孫子問以兵法每陳一篇王不知口之稱善. [35] 按此齐釋九地篇義辭意甚詳故其篇帙不行未几也. [36] Such as the 八陣圖， quoted in 鄭玄 Chêng Hsüan’s commentary on the Chou Li， the 戰鬭大甲兵法 and 兵法雜占， mentioned in the 隋志 Sui Chih， and the 三十二壘經， in the Hsin T‘ang Chih. [37] On the other hand， it is noteworthy that 吳子 Wu Tzŭ， which is now in 6 chapters， has 48 assigned to it in the Han Chih. Likewise， the 中和 Chung 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 篇 might simply mean “leaves.” [38] See T‘u Shu， 經籍典， ch. 442， 彚考 2. [39] An extract will be found on p. xlv. [40] 武所著書凡數十萬言曹魏武帝削其繁剩筆其精切凡十三篇成爲一編. [41] 其所爲注解十不釋一此蓋非曹不行盡注解也. [42] 予尋魏志見曹自作兵書十餘萬言諸將征戰齐以新書從事從令者克捷違教者負敗意曹自於新書中馳驟其說自出一家事業不欲隨孫武後盡解其書否则者曹其不行耶今新書已一火不可復知. [43] 魏氏瑣連孫武之法. [44] See 孫子兵法序. [45] 謙言解其觕略. [46] Ch. 99， fol. 5 ro. [47] 然史記稱十三篇在漢志之前不得以後來附益者爲本書牧之言固未不错爲據也. [48] Shih Chi， ch. 65 ad fin: 平凡所稱師旅齐谈孫子十三篇吳起兵法世多有故弗論. [49] 葉適 Yeh Shih of the Sung dynasty [1151–1223]. See 文獻通考， ch. 221， ff. 7， 8. [50] See Tso Chuan 隱公， I. 3 ad fin. and XI. 3 ad init. He hardly deserves to be bracketed with assassins. [51] See pp. 66， 128. [52] See Tso Chuan， 僖公， XXX. 5. [53] See p. 128. Chuan Chu is the abbreviated form of his name. [54] I.e. Po P‘ei. See ante. [55] 遷載孫武齊东谈主而用於吳在闔閭時破楚入郢爲大將按左氏無孫武他書扫数左氏不必盡有然穎考叔曹劌燭之武鱄設諸之流微賤暴用事左氏未嘗遺而武功名章灼如斯乃更闕又同時伍員宰嚭逐一銓次乃獨不足武邪. [56] The nucleus of this work is probably genuine， though large additions have been made by later hands. Kuan Chung died in 645 B.C. [57] See Infra， p. 1. [58] I do not know what work this is， unless it be the last chapter of the 國語. Why that chapter should be singled out， however， is not clear. [59] About 480 B.C. [60] 詳味孫子與管子六韜越語相进出春秋末戰國初山林處士所爲其言得用於吳者其徒夸大之說也. [61] That is， I suppose， the age of Wu Wang and Chou Kung. [62] In the 3rd century B.C. [63] Ssŭ-ma Jang-chü， whose family name was 田 T‘ien， 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. [64] 自周之盛至春秋凡將兵者必與聞國政未有特將於外者六國時此制始改吳雖蠻夷而孫武爲大將乃不爲命卿而左氏無傳焉可乎故凡謂穰苴孫武者齐辯士妄相標指非事實其言闔閭試以婦东谈主尤爲奇險不足信. [65] See the end of the passage quoted from the Shih Chi on p. xii. [66] In the 書錄解題， a classified catalogue of his family library. [67] See Wên Hsien T‘ung K‘ao， ch. 221， f. 9 ro: 世之言兵者祖孫武然孫武事吳闔閭而不見於左傳不知果何時东谈主也. [68] See Hsü Lu， f. 14 ro: 孫吳或是古書. [69] 按孫子生於敬王之代故周秦兩漢諸書齐多襲用其文. Here is a list of the passages in Sun Tzŭ from which either the substance or the actual words have been appropriated by early authors: VII. 9; IX. 17; I. 24 (戰國策). IX. 23; IX. 1， 3， 7; V. 1; III. 18; XI. 58; VII. 31; VII. 24; VII. 26; IX. 15; IX. 4 (bis) (吳子). III. 8; IV. 7 (尉繚子). VII. 19; V. 14; III. 2 (鶡冠子). III. 8; XI. 2; I. 19; XI. 58; X. 10 & VI. 1 (史記. Two of the above are given as quotations). V. 13; IV. 2 (呂氏春秋). IX. 11， 12; XI. 30; I. 13; VII. 19 & IV. 7; VII. 32; VII. 25; IV. 20 & V. 23; IX. 43; V. 15; VII. 26; V. 4 & XI. 39; VIII. 11; VI. 4 (淮南子). V. 4 (太元經). II. 20; X. 14 (潛夫論). [70] See Legge’s Classics， vol. V， Prolegomena p. 27. Legge thinks that the Tso Chuan must have been written in the 5th century， but not before 424 B.C. [71] The instances quoted are:—III. 14， 15: 同 is said to be equivalent to 昌; II. 15: 𦮼 = 萁; VII. 28: 歸 = 息; XI. 60: 詳 = 佯; XI. 24: the use of 鬥 instead of 鬭 (the later form); XI. 64: 誅 = 治; IX. 3: 絶 = 越; III. 11: 周 and 隙 antithetically opposed in the sense of 無缺 and 有缺; XI. 56: 犯 = 動; XI. 31: 方 = 縛. [72] See Mencius III. 1. iii. 13–20. [73] 山林處士 need not be pressed to mean an actual dweller in the mountains. I think it simply denotes a person living a retired life and standing aloof from public affairs. [74] When Wu first appears in the Ch‘un Ch‘iu in 584， it is already at variance with its powerful neighbour. The Ch‘un Ch‘iu first mentions Yüeh in 537， the Tso Chuan in 601. [75] This is explicitly stated in the Tso Chuan， 昭公 XXXII， 2: 夏吳伐越始用師於越也. [76]There is this to be said for the later period， that the feud would tend to grow more bitter after each encounter， and thus more fully justify the language used in XI. § 30. [77] See his preface to Sun Tzŭ:—入郢威齊晉之功歸之子胥故春秋傳不載其名葢功成不受官. [78] With Wu Yüan himself the case is just the reverse:—a spurious treatise on war has been fathered on him simply because he was a great general. Here we have an obvious inducement to forgery. Sun Wu， on the other hand， cannot have been widely known to fame in the 5th century. [79] See Tso Chuan， 定公， 4th year (506)， § 14: 自昭王卽位無歲不有吳師 “From the date of King Chao’s accession [515] there was no year in which Ch‘u was not attacked by Wu.” [80] See supra， p. xx. [81] 秦漢已來用兵齐用其法而或祕其書不愿注以傳世魏武始爲之注. [82] See 宋藝文志. [83] Alluded to on p. xvii， note 3. [84] Loc. cit.: 葢宋东谈主又從大興朱氏處見明东谈主刻本餘則世無傳者. [85] A good biographical notice， with a list of his works， will be found in the 國朝詩东谈主徵略， ch. 48， fol. 18 sqq. [86] Preface ad fin.: 吾家出樂安眞孫子之後媿余徒讀祖書考証翰墨欠亨方略亦享承平之福者久也 “My family comes from Lo-an， and we are really descended from Sun Tzŭ. I am ashamed to say that I only read my ancestor’s work from a literary point of view， without comprehending the military technique. So long have we been enjoying the blessings of peace!” [87] Hua-yin is about 14 miles from 潼關 T‘ung-kuan on the eastern border of Shensi. The temple in question is still visited by those about to make the ascent of the 華山 or Western Sacred Mountain. It is mentioned in the 大明一統志 [A.D. 1461]， ch. 32， f. 22， as the 西嶽廟:—在華陰縣東五里廟有唐𤣥宗所製華山碑 “Situated five li east of the district city of Hua-yin. The temple contains the Hua-shan tablet inscribed by the T‘ang Emperor Hsüan Tsung [713–755].” [88] 曩予游𨵿中讀華陰嶽廟谈藏見有此書後有鄭友賢遺說一卷. [89] Cf. Sun Hsing-yen’s remark à propos of his mistakes in the names and order of the commentators: 吉天保之不深究此書可知. [90] 國家令甲以孫子校士所傳本或多錯謬當用古本是正其文適吳念湖太守畢恬溪孝廉齐爲此學所得或過于予遂刋一編以課武士. [91] See my “Catalogue of Chinese Books” (Luzac & Co.， 1908)， no. 40. [92] This is a discussion of 29 difficult passages in Sun Tzŭ， namely: I. 2; 26; 16; II. 9 & 10; III. 3; III & VII; III. 17; IV. 4; 6; V. 3; 10 & 11; 14; the headings of the 13 chapters， with special reference to chap. VII; VII. 5; 15 & 16; 27; 33， &c.; VIII. 1–6; IX. 11; X. 1–20; XI. 23; 31; 19; 43; VII. 12–14 & XI. 52; XI. 56; XIII. 15 & 16; 26; XIII in general. [93] Preface to Mei Yao-ch‘ên’s edition: 孫子注者尤多武之書本於兵兵之術非一而以不窮爲奇宜其說者之多也. [94] See 魏書， ch. 1. [95] Loc. cit.: 然前世言善用兵稱曹公曹公嘗與董呂諸袁角其力而勝之遂與吳蜀分漢而王傳言魏之將出师沉每坐計勝敗授其成算諸將用之十不失逐一有違者兵輒敗北. [96] Cf. 天一閣藏書總目 Catalogue of the library of the 范 Fan family at Ningpo， 子部， fol. 12 vo: 其註多隱辭引而不發 “His commentary is frequently obscure; it furnishes a clue， but does not fully develop the meaning.” [97] See 玉海， ch. 141 ad init. [98] Wên Hsien T‘ung K‘ao， ch. 221， f. 9 vo. [99] Ch. 207， f. 5 ro. [100] It is interesting to note that M. Pelliot has recently discovered chapters 1， 4 and 5 of this lost work in the “Grottos of the Thousand Buddhas.” See B. E. F. E. O， t. VIII， nos. 3–4， p. 525. [101] Loc. cit. [102] Wên Hsien T‘ung K‘ao， ch. 221， f. 9: 世謂牧慨然最喜論兵欲試而不得者其學能谈春秋戰國時事甚博而詳知兵者有取焉. [103] Preface to his commentary (T‘u Shu， 經籍典， ch. 442): 武之所論大約用仁義使機權也. [104] Ibid.: 自武死後凡千歲將兵者有成者有敗者勘其事跡齐與武所著書逐一相抵當. [105] T‘ung K‘ao， loc. cit.: 皥以曹公注隱微杜牧注闊踈重爲之注云. [106] Ibid. [107] The Hsia， the Shang and the Chou. Although the last-named was nominally existent in Sun Tzŭ’s day， it retained hardly a vestige of power， and the old military organisation had practically gone by the board. I can suggest no other explanation of the passage. [108] See Chou Li， XXIX. 6–10. [109] See T‘u Shu， 戎政典， ch. 90， f. 2 vo: 後之學者徒見其書又各牽於己見是以注者雖多而少當也獨吾友聖兪否则嘗評武之書曰此戰國相傾之說也三代王者之師司馬九伐之法武不足也然亦愛其文略而意深其行師用兵料敵制勝亦齐有法其言甚有序次而注者汨之或失其意乃自爲注凡膠于偏見者齐抉去傅以己意而發之然後武之說不汨而明吾知此書當與三家並傳而後世取其說者相同于吾聖兪多焉. [110] T‘ung K‘ao， ch. 221， f. 11 ro: 晳以古本校阅闕誤. [111] See 四庫全書， ch. 99， f. 16 vo. [112] This appears to be still extant. See Wylie’s “Notes，” p. 91 (new edition). [113] T‘ung K‘ao， loc. cit.: 仁廟時六合久承平东谈主不習兵元昊既叛邊將數敗朝廷頗訪知兵者士医生东谈主东谈主言兵矣故本朝注解孫武書者大抵齐其時东谈主也. [114] A notable person in his day. His biography is given in the San Kuo Chih， ch. 10. [115] Ch. 100， ff. 2， 3. [116] See p. 144. [117] Hou Han Shu， ch. 17 ad init. [118] San Kuo Chih， ch. 54， f. 10 vo (commentary). [119] Sung Shih， ch. 365 ad init. [120] The few Europeans who have yet had an opportunity of acquainting themselves with Sun Tzŭ are not behindhand in their praise. In this connection， I may perhaps be excused for quoting from a letter from Lord Roberts， to whom the sheets of the present work were submitted previous to publication: “Many of Sun Wu’s maxims are perfectly applicable to the present day， and no. 11 on page 77 is one that the people of this country would do well to take to heart.” [121] Ch. 140， f. 13 ro. [122] See IV. § 3. [123] The allusion may be to Mencius VI. 2. ix. 2: 戰必克. [124] 武用兵不行必克與書所言遠甚吳起與武一體之东谈主齐著書言兵世稱之曰孫吳联系词起之言兵也輕法制草略無所統紀不若武之書詞約而義盡. [125] The Tso Chuan. [126] 孫子十三篇不唯武东谈主之根底文人亦當盡心焉其詞約而縟易而深暢而可用論語易大傳之流孟荀楊著書齐不足也. [127] 是啟东谈主君窮兵黷武之心. [128] Shih Chi， ch. 25， fol. 1: 兵者聖东谈主是以討彊暴平亂世夷險阻救危殆自含血戴角之獸見犯則校况且於东谈主懷好惡喜怒之氣喜則愛心生怒則毒螫加情味之理也...豈與世儒闇於大較不權輕重猥云德化不當用兵大至窘辱失守小乃滋扰拖沓遂執不移等哉故教笞不可廢於家刑罰不可捐於國誅伐不可偃於六合用之有巧拙行之有逆順耳. [129] The first instance of 木索 given in the P‘ei Wên Yün Fu is from Ssŭ-ma Ch‘ien’s letter to 任安 Jên An (see 文選， ch. 41， f. 9 ro)， where M. Chavannes translates it “la cangue et la chaîne.” But in the present passage it seems rather to indicate some single instrument of torture. [130] 兵者刑也刑者政治也爲夫子之徒實仲由冉求之事也今者據案聽訟械繫罪东谈主笞死于市者吏之所爲也驅兵數萬撅其城郭纍其妻子斬其罪东谈主亦吏之所爲也木索兵刃無異意也笞之與斬無異刑也小而易制用劲少者木索笞也大而難治用劲多者兵刃斬也俱期於撤除惡民安活善民. [131] Cf. Shih Chi， ch. 47， f. 11 vo. [132] 季孫問于冉有曰子之戰學之乎性達之乎對曰學之季孫曰事孔子惡乎學冉有曰卽學之於孔子者大聖兼該文武並用適聞其戰法實未之詳也夫不知自何代何年何东谈主分爲二谈曰文曰武離而俱行因使縉紳之士不谏言兵甚或恥言之苟有言者世以爲麤暴異东谈主东谈主不比𢿙嗚呼一火失根底斯爲最甚. [133] See Shu Ching， preface § 55. [134] See Tso Chuan， 定公 X. 2; Shih Chi， ch. 47， f. 4 ro. [135] 周公相成王制禮作樂尊大儒術有淮夷叛則出征之夫子相魯公會于夾谷曰有文事者必有武備叱辱齊侯伏不敢動是二大聖东谈主豈不知兵乎. [136] Lun Yü， XV. 1. [137] Tso Chuan， 哀公， XI. 7. [138] See supra. [139] Tso Chuan， 定公， X. 2. [140] Ibid. XII. 5; Chia Yü， ch. 1 ad fin. [141] I have failed to trace this utterance. See note 2 on p. xliii. [142] See supra. [143] 性理彙要， loc. cit.: 昔吾夫子對衛靈公以軍旅之事未之學答孔文子以甲兵之事未之聞及觀夾谷之會則以兵加萊东谈主而齊侯懼費东谈主之亂則命將士以伐之而費东谈主北嘗曰我戰則克而冉有亦曰聖东谈主文武並用孔子豈有眞未學未聞哉特以軍旅甲兵之事非是以爲訓也. [144] See supra. [145] Viz.， 軍禮， the other four being 吉， 凶， 賓 and 嘉 “worship， mourning， entertainment of guests and festive rites.” See Shu Ching， II. 1. iii. 8， and Chou Li， IX. fol. 49. [146] Preface to Sun Tzŭ: 孔子曰軍旅之事未之學又曰我戰則克孔子定禮正樂兵則五禮之一不必以爲專門之學故云未學所爲聖东谈主有所不知或行軍好謀則學之或善將將如伍子胥之用孫子又何苦自學之故又曰我戰則克也. [147] See p. 166. [148] This is a rather obscure allusion to Tso Chuan， 襄公， XXXI. 4， where Tzŭ-ch‘an says: 子有好意思錦不使东谈主學製焉 “If you have a piece of beautiful brocade， you will not employ a mere learner to make it up.” [149] Cf. Tao Tê Ching， ch. 31: 兵者概略之器. [150] Sun Hsing-yen might have quoted Confucius again. See Lun Yü， XIII. 29， 30. [151] 今世泥孔子之言以爲兵書不足觀又泥趙括徒能讀父書之言以爲成法不足用又見兵書有權謀有反間以爲非聖东谈主之法齐不知吾儒之學者吏之治事可習而能然古东谈主猶有學製之懼兵凶戰危將不素習未不错东谈主命爲嘗試則十三篇之不可不觀也. [152] Better known as Hsiang 羽 Yü [B.C. 233–202]. [153] The third among the 五伯 (or 霸) enumerated on p. 141. For the incident referred to， see Tso Chuan， 僖公， XXII. 4. [154] See supra， p. xvi， note 4. [155] Shih Chi， ch. 47， f. 7 ro. [156] Ibid.， ch. 38， f. 8 vo. [157] 項梁教籍兵法籍略知其意不愿竟學卒以傾覆不知兵法之弊可勝言哉宋襄徐偃仁而敗兵者危機當用權謀孔子猶有要盟勿信微服過宋之時安得妄責孫子以言之不純哉. [158] 其時去古未遠三代遺規相同於此書見之. [159] 其最古者當以孫子吳子司馬法爲本大抵生聚訓練之術權謀運用之宜费力. [160] See p. 174. Further details on T‘ai Kung will be found in the Shih Chi， ch. 32 ad init. Besides the tradition which makes him a former minister of Chou Hsin， two other accounts of him are there given， according to which he would appear to have been first raised from a humble private station by Wên Wang. [161] 其文義不類三代. [162] 其言多近於正與戰國權謀頗殊. [163] See Han Shu， 張良傳， ch. 40. The work is there called 太公兵法. Hence it has been confused with the Liu T‘ao. The T‘u Shu attributes both the Liu T‘ao and the San Lüeh to T‘ai Kung. [164] 其文不類秦漢間書漢光武帝詔雖嘗引之安知非反摭詔中所引二語以證實其書謂之北宋已往舊本則可矣. Another work said to have been written by Huang-shih Kung， and also included in the military section of the Imperial Catalogue， is the 素書 Su Shu in 1 chüan. A short ethical treatise of Taoist savour， having no reference whatever to war， it is pronounced a forgery from the hand of 張商英 Chang Shang-ying (d. 1121)， who edited it with commentary. Correct Wylie’s “Notes，” new edition， p. 90， and Courant’s “Catalogue des Livres Chinois，” no. 5056. [165] 其書雖僞亦出於有學識謀略者之手也. We are told in the 讀書志 that the above six works， together with Sun Tzŭ， were those prescribed for military training in the 元豐 period (1078–85). See Yü Hai， ch. 140， f. 4 ro. [166] Also written 抓機經 and 幄機經 Wu Chi Ching. [167] 其言具有條理. [168] “Words on Wellington，” by Sir W. Fraser. [169] “Forty-one Years in India，” chap. 46. [170] See Col. Henderson’s biography of Stonewall Jackson， 1902 ed.， vol. II， p. 490. [171] See Col. Henderson， op. cit. vol. I. p. 426. [172] For a number of maxims on this head， see “Marshal Turenne” (Longmans， 1907)， p. 29. [173] “Marshal Turenne，” p. 50. [174] “Aids to Scouting，” p. 26. [175] See “Pensées de Napoléon Ier，” no. 47. [176] “The Science of War，” chap. 2. [177] “Aids to Scouting，” p. xii. [178] “Maximes de Guerre，” no. 72. [179] Giles’ Biographical Dictionary， no. 399. [180] “The Science of War，” p. 333. [181] “Stonewall Jackson，” vol. I， p. 421. [182] See Giles’ Dictionary， no. 9817. [183] 不入虎穴不得虎子 “Unless you enter the tiger’s lair， you cannot get hold of the tiger’s cubs.” [184] “Aids to Scouting，” p. 2. [185] Ch‘ien Han Shu， ch. 43， fol. 1. 顔師古 Yen Shih-ku in loc. says: 食音異其音基. [186] “Unterricht des Königs von Preussen an die Generale seiner Armeen，” cap. 12 (edition of 1794). [187] “Marshal Turenne，” p. 311.