_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.
67, 76.
Wang Kuo, the rebel, 94.
Wang Liao, 128.
Wang Ling, a commentator, xxxvii, xli. _See also_ Wang Tzŭ.
Wang Tzŭ, quoted, 4, 6, 24.
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 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.
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 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.
142, 156; referred to, xxiv.
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 dynasty, 173, 174.
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.
—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.
CORRIGENDA „ „ § 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 „ 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.
“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.
„ 136, 11th line from bottom: Insert “to” before “select.”
Footnotes [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_.
[5] Also written 闔閭 Ho Lü. He reigned from 514 to 496 B.C.
[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 _r_^o.
[9] The appellation of 囊瓦 Nang Wa.
[12] The appellation of 狐偃 Hu Yen, mentioned in ch. 39 under the year 637.
[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 _v_^o 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] 孫子者吳人也善爲兵法辟幽居世人莫知其能.
[16] 君臣乖心則孫子不能以應敵.
[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天下 “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.
[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: 是故殺人安人殺之可也.
[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 tom. II, p. 8.
貞丈人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人故殺人殺之可也恃武 者滅恃文者亡夫差偃王是也聖人之用兵戢而時動不得已而用之.
[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人也名武爲吳王闔閭作兵法一十三篇試之 婦人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 而但世人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] 按此皆釋九地篇義辭意甚詳故其篇帙不能不多也.
[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 中庸 _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.”
[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能盡注解也.
[42] 予尋魏志見曹自作兵書十餘萬言諸將征戰皆以新書從事從令者克捷違教者負敗意曹自於 新書中馳驟其說自成一家事業不欲隨孫武後盡解其書不然者曹其不能耶今新書已亡不可復知.
[43] 魏氏瑣連孫武之法.
[44] See 孫子兵法序.
[45] 謙言解其觕略.
[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可以爲據也.
[49] 葉適 Yeh Shih of the Sung dynasty [1151–1223]. See 文獻通考, ch. 221, ff. 7, 8.
deserves to be bracketed with assassins.
[53] See p. 128. Chuan Chu is the abbreviated form of his name.
[55] 遷載孫武齊人而用於吳在闔閭時破楚入郢爲大將按左氏無孫武他書所有左氏不必 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此乃更闕又 同時伍員宰嚭一一銓次乃獨不及武邪.
[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.
[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出入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皆辯士妄相標指非事實其言闔閭試以婦 人尤爲奇險不足信.
[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.
孫武事吳闔閭而不見於左傳不知果何時人也.
[69] 按孫子生於敬王之代故周秦兩漢諸書皆多襲用其文. 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).
of the above are given as quotations). V. 13; IV. 2 (呂氏春秋). IX. 11, (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 III. 11: 周 and 隙 antithetically opposed in the sense of 無缺 and 有缺; [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.
“From the date of King Chao’s accession [515] there was no year in which Ch‘u was not attacked by Wu.”
[81] 秦漢已來用兵皆用其法而或祕其書不肯注以傳世魏武始爲之注.
[82] See 宋藝文志.
[83] Alluded to on p. xvii, note 3.
[85] A good biographical notice, with a list of his works, will be found in the 國朝詩人徵略, ch. 48, fol. 18 _sqq._ 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道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皆爲此 學所得或過于予遂刋一編以課武士.
no. 40.
[92] This is a discussion of 29 difficult passages in Sun Tzŭ, namely: 10 & 11; 14; the headings of the 13 chapters, with special reference to 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.
王傳言魏之將出兵千里每坐計勝敗授其成算諸將用之十不失一一有違者兵輒敗北.
[96] Cf. 天一閣藏書總目 Catalogue of the library of the 范 Fan family at Ningpo, 子部, fol. 12 _v_^o: 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.”
[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 [101] _Loc. cit._ 其學能道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.
[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.
見是以注者雖多而少當也獨吾友聖兪不然嘗評武之書曰此戰國相傾之說也三代王者之師司馬 九伐之法武不及也然亦愛其文略而意深其行師用兵料敵制勝亦皆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皆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往往于吾聖兪多焉.
[112] This appears to be still extant. See Wylie’s “Notes,” p. 91 (new edition).
訪知兵者士大夫人人言兵矣故本朝注解孫武書者大抵皆其時人也.
[114] A notable person in his day. His biography is given in the [116] _See_ p. 144.
[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.”
[123] The allusion may be to Mencius VI. 2. ix. 2: 戰必克.
[124] 武用兵不能必克與書所言遠甚吳起與武一體之人皆著書言兵世稱之曰孫吳然而起之言 兵也輕法制草略無所統紀不若武之書詞約而義盡.
[126] 孫子十三篇不惟武人之根本文士亦當盡心焉其詞約而縟易而深暢而可用論語易大傳之 流孟荀楊著書皆不及也.
[127] 是啟人君窮兵黷武之心.
大較不權輕重猥云德化不當用兵大至窘辱失守小乃侵犯削弱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天下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 _r_^o), 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] 兵者刑也刑者政事也爲夫子之徒實仲由冉求之事也今者據案聽訟械繫罪人笞死于市者 吏之所爲也驅兵數萬撅其城郭纍其妻子斬其罪人亦吏之所爲也木索兵刃無異意也笞之與斬無 異刑也小而易制用力少者木索笞也大而難治用力多者兵刃斬也俱期於除去惡民安活善民.
[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人分爲二道曰文曰武離而 俱行因使縉紳之士不敢言兵甚或恥言之苟有言者世以爲麤暴異人人不比𢿙嗚呼亡失根本斯爲最 甚.
[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人豈不知兵乎.
[138] See _supra_.
[141] I have failed to trace this utterance. See note 2 on p. xliii.
[142] See _supra_.
未之聞及觀夾谷之會則以兵加萊人而齊侯懼費人之亂則命將士以伐之而費人北嘗曰我戰則克而 冉有亦曰聖人文武並用孔子豈有眞未學未聞哉特以軍旅甲兵之事非所以爲訓也.
[144] See _supra_.
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人有所不知或行軍好謀則學之或善將將如伍子胥之用 孫子又何必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: 子有美錦不使人學製焉 “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: 兵者不祥之器.
[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人之法皆不知吾儒之學者吏之治事可習而能然古人猶有學製之懼兵凶戰危 將不素習未可以人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.
[157] 項梁教籍兵法籍略知其意不肯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往往於此書見之.
[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而已.
[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 以前舊本則可矣. 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 _r_^o.
[166] Also written 握機經 and 幄機經 _Wu Chi Ching_.
[167] 其言具有條理.
[168] “Words on Wellington,” by Sir W. Fraser.
[170] See Col. Henderson’s biography of Stonewall Jackson, 1902 ed., vol. II, p. 490.
[172] For a number of maxims on this head, see “Marshal Turenne” [175] See “Pensées de Napoléon I^{er},” no. 47.
[179] Giles’ Biographical Dictionary, no. 399.
[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.”
says: 食音異其音基.
[186] “Unterricht des Königs von Preussen an die Generale seiner Armeen,” cap. 12 (edition of 1794).