The Art of War - 02

of the "Spring and Autumn," all military commanders were statesmen as
well, and the class of professional generals, for conducting external
campaigns, did not then exist. It was not until the period of the "Six
States" [27] that this custom changed. Now although Wu was an
uncivilized State, it is conceivable that Tso should have left
unrecorded the fact that Sun Wu was a great general and yet held no
civil office? What we are told, therefore, about Jang-chu [28] and Sun
Wu, is not authentic matter, but the reckless fabrication of theorizing
pundits. The story of Ho Lu’s experiment on the women, in particular,
is utterly preposterous and incredible.
Yeh Shui-hsin represents Ssu-ma Ch’ien as having said that Sun Wu
crushed Ch’u and entered Ying. This is not quite correct. No doubt the
impression left on the reader’s mind is that he at least shared in
these exploits. The fact may or may not be significant; but it is
nowhere explicitly stated in the _Shih Chi_ either that Sun Tzŭ was
general on the occasion of the taking of Ying, or that he even went
there at all. Moreover, as we know that Wu Yuan and Po P’ei both took
part in the expedition, and also that its success was largely due to
the dash and enterprise of Fu Kai, Ho Lu’s younger brother, it is not
easy to see how yet another general could have played a very prominent
part in the same campaign.
Ch’en Chen-sun of the Sung dynasty has the note:—
Military writers look upon Sun Wu as the father of their art. But the
fact that he does not appear in the _Tso Chuan_, although he is said to
have served under Ho Lu King of Wu, makes it uncertain what period he
really belonged to.

He also says:—
The works of Sun Wu and Wu Ch’i may be of genuine antiquity.

It is noticeable that both Yeh Shui-hsin and Ch’en Chen-sun, while
rejecting the personality of Sun Wu as he figures in Ssu-ma Ch’ien’s
history, are inclined to accept the date traditionally assigned to the
work which passes under his name. The author of the _Hsu Lu_ fails to
appreciate this distinction, and consequently his bitter attack on
Ch’en Chen-sun really misses its mark. He makes one of two points,
however, which certainly tell in 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 plagiarized in subsequent
works of the Chou, Ch’in and Han dynasties." The two most shameless
offenders in this respect are Wu Ch’i and Huai-nan 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 Tseng Shen delivered the _Tso Chuan_, which had been entrusted to
him by its author. [29] Now the fact that quotations from the _Art of
War_, acknowledged or otherwise, are to be found in so many authors of
different epochs, establishes a very strong anterior to them all,—in
other words, that Sun 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 _Hsu Lu;_ and though some of the
interpretations are doubtful, the main argument is hardly affected
thereby. Again, it must not be forgotten that Yeh Shui-hsin, a scholar
and critic of the first rank, deliberately pronounces the style of the
13 chapters to belong to the early part of the fifth century. Seeing
that he is actually engaged in an attempt to disprove the existence of
Sun Wu himself, we may be sure that he would not have hesitated to
assign the work to a later date had he not honestly believed the
contrary. And it is precisely on such a point that the judgment of an
educated Chinaman will carry most weight. Other internal evidence is
not far to seek. Thus in XIII. § 1, there is an unmistakable allusion
to the ancient system of land-tenure which had already passed away by
the time of Mencius, who was anxious to see it revived in a modified
form. [30] The only warfare Sun Tzŭ knows is that carried on between
the various feudal princes, in which armored chariots play a large
part. Their use seems to have entirely died out before the end of the
Chou dynasty. He speaks as a man of Wu, a state which ceased to exist
as early as 473 B.C. On this I shall touch presently.
But once refer the work to the 5th century or earlier, and the chances
of its being other than a _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, 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 generalization, but
also of a practical soldier closely acquainted with the military
conditions of his time. To say nothing 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 Ssu-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 in in
VI. § 21:—
Though according to my estimate the soldiers of Yüeh exceed our own in
number, that shall advantage them nothing in the matter of victory. I
say then that victory can be achieved.

The other is in XI. § 30:—
Asked if an army can be made to imitate the _shuai-jan_, I should
answer, Yes. For the men of Wu and the men of Yüeh are enemies; 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.

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-hsun. But what has
hitherto escaped notice is that they also seriously impair the
credibility of Ssu-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, 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, 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, [31] whereas the first war between Wu and Yüeh
was waged only in 510, [32] 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.
514 Accession of Ho Lu.
512 Ho Lu attacks Ch’u, but is dissuaded from entering Ying,
the capital. Shih Chi mentions Sun Wu as general.
511 Another attack on Ch’u.
510 Wu makes a successful attack on Yüeh. This is the first
war between the two states.
509 or 508 Ch’u invades Wu, but is signally defeated at Yu-chang.
506 Ho Lu attacks Ch’u with the aid of T’ang and Ts’ai.
Decisive battle of Po-chu, and capture of Ying. Last
mention of Sun Wu in Shih Chi.
505 Yüeh makes a raid on Wu in the absence of its army. Wu
is beaten by Ch’in and evacuates Ying.
504 Ho Lu sends Fu Ch’ai to attack Ch’u.
497 Kou Chien becomes King of Yüeh.
496 Wu attacks Yüeh, but is defeated by Kou Chien at Tsui-li.
Ho Lu is killed.
494 Fu Ch’ai defeats Kou Chien in the great battle of Fu-
chaio, and enters the capital of Yüeh.
485 or 484 Kou Chien renders homage to Wu. Death of Wu Tzŭ-hsu.
482 Kou Chien invades Wu in the absence of Fu Ch’ai.
478 to 476 Further attacks by Yüeh on Wu.
475 Kou Chien lays siege to the capital of Wu.
473 Final 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 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. [33]
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 the great commentary. It was Wu
Tzŭ-hsu, 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.
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 Yuan, [34] 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 the prince’s reign.
[35] If he rose to be a general at all, he certainly was never on an
equal footing with the three 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 Ssu-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. Sun Hsing-yen says in his preface:—
During the Ch’in and Han dynasties Sun Tzŭ’s _Art of War_ was in
general use amongst military commanders, but they seem to have treated
it as a work of mysterious import, and were unwilling to expound it for
the benefit of posterity. Thus it came about that Wei Wu was the first
to write a commentary on it.

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 Chi T’ien-pao
published a work in 15 _chuan_ entitled "Sun Tzŭ with the collected
commentaries of ten writers." There was another text, with variant
readings put forward by Chu Fu of Ta-hsing, 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. 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 encyclopedia printed
in 1726, the _Ku Chin T’u Shu Chi Ch’eng_. Another copy at my disposal
of what is practically the same text, with slight variations, is that
contained in the "Eleven philosophers of the Chou and Ch’in dynasties"
[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 Sun Hsing-yen [1752-1818], a
distinguished antiquarian and classical scholar, who claimed to be an
actual descendant of Sun Wu, [36] accidentally discovered a copy of Chi
T’ien-pao’s long-lost work, when on a visit to the library of the
Hua-yin temple. [37] Appended to it was the _I Shuo_ of Cheng Yu-Hsien,
mentioned in the _T’ung Chih_, and also believed to have perished. This
is what Sun Hsing-yen designates as the "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, and appears to have been content to reproduce the
somewhat debased version current in his day, without troubling to
collate it 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 Yu
Lan_ encyclopedia. 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 _Yu
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 utilizing 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:—
Because of the numerous mistakes in the text of Sun Tzŭ which his
editors had handed down, the Government ordered that the ancient
edition [of Chi T’ien-pao] should be used, and that the text should be
revised and corrected throughout. It happened that Wu Nien-hu, the
Governor Pi Kua, and Hsi, a graduate of the second degree, had all
devoted themselves to this study, probably surpassing me therein.
Accordingly, I have had the whole work cut on blocks as a textbook for
military men.

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 Wu Jen-shi. They took the "original
edition" as their basis, and by careful comparison with older versions,
as well as the extant commentaries and other sources of information
such as 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 reissue dated 1877. It is in 6
_pen_, forming part of a well-printed set of 23 early philosophical
works in 83 _pen_. [38] 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, Cheng Yu-hsien’s
_I Shuo_, [39] with author’s preface, and next, a short miscellany of
historical and bibliographical information entitled _Sun Tzŭ Hsu Lu_,
compiled by Pi I-hsun. 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 distinguished roll of
commentators, which would do honour to any classic. 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
inexhaustible, must therefore be susceptible of treatment in a great
variety of ways.
1. TS’AO TS’AO or Ts’ao Kung, afterwards known as 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_ 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
marvelous rapidity of his marches, which has found expression in the
line "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, Lu Pu and the two Yuan, 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." 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 compression, they are scarcely
intelligible and stand no less in need of a commentary than the text
itself. [40]
2. MENG SHIH. The commentary which has come down to us under this name
is comparatively meager, 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 Ch’ao Kung-wu also assigns him to the T’ang
dynasty, [41] but this is a mistake. In Sun Hsing-yen’s preface, he
appears as Meng Shih of the Liang dynasty [502-557]. Others would
identify him with Meng K’ang of the 3rd century. He is named in one
work as the last of the "Five Commentators," the others being Wei Wu
Ti, Tu Mu, Ch’en Hao and Chia Lin.
3. LI CH’UAN of the 8th century was a well-known writer on military
tactics. One of his works has been in constant use down to the present
day. The _T’ung Chih_ mentions "Lives of famous generals from the Chou
to the T’ang dynasty" as written by him. [42] According to Ch’ao
Kung-wu and the _T’ien-i-ko_ catalogue, he followed a variant of the
text of Sun Tzŭ which differs considerably from those now extant. His
notes are mostly short and to the point, and he frequently illustrates
his remarks by anecdotes from Chinese history.
4. TU YU (died 812) did not publish a separate commentary on Sun Tzŭ,
his notes being taken from the _T’ung Tien_, the encyclopedic treatise
on the Constitution which was his life-work. They are largely
repetitions of Ts’ao Kung and Meng Shih, besides which it is believed
that he drew on the ancient commentaries of Wang Ling and others. Owing
to the peculiar arrangement of _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. TU MU (803-852) is perhaps the 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. 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
summarized by him: "Practice benevolence and justice, but on the other
hand make full use of artifice and measures of expediency." He further
declared that all the military triumphs and disasters of the thousand
years which had elapsed since Sun Tzŭ’s death would, upon examination,
be found to uphold and corroborate, in every particular, the maxims
contained in his book. Tu Mu’s somewhat spiteful charge against Ts’ao
Kung has already been considered elsewhere.
6. CH’EN 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. Ou-yang Hsiu,
writing in the middle of the 11th century, calls Ts’ao Kung, Tu Mu and
Ch’en Hao the three chief commentators on Sun Tzŭ, and observes that
Ch’en Hao is continually attacking Tu Mu’s shortcomings. His
commentary, though not lacking in merit, must rank below those of his
predecessors.
7. CHIA LIN is known to have lived under the T’ang dynasty, for his
commentary on Sun Tzŭ is mentioned in the _T’ang Shu_ and was
afterwards republished by Chi Hsieh of the same dynasty together with
those of Meng Shih and Tu Yu. It is of somewhat scanty texture, and in
point of quality, too, perhaps the least valuable of the eleven.
8. MEI YAO-CH’EN (1002-1060), commonly known by his "style" as Mei
Sheng-yu, 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:—
Later scholars have misread Sun Tzŭ, distorting his words and trying to
make them square with their own one-sided views. Thus, though
commentators have not been lacking, only a few have proved equal to the
task. My friend Sheng-yu has not fallen into this mistake. In
attempting to provide a critical commentary for Sun Tzŭ’s work, he does
not lose sight of the fact that these sayings were intended for states
engaged in internecine warfare; that the author is not concerned with
the military conditions prevailing under the sovereigns of the three
ancient dynasties, [43] nor with the nine punitive measures prescribed
to the Minister of War. [44] Again, Sun Wu loved brevity of diction,
but his meaning is always deep. Whether the subject be marching an
army, or handling soldiers, or estimating the enemy, or controlling the
forces of victory, it is always systematically treated; the sayings are
bound together in strict logical sequence, though this has been
obscured by commentators who have probably failed to grasp their
meaning. In his own commentary, Mei Sheng-yu has brushed aside all the
obstinate prejudices of these critics, and has tried to bring out the
true meaning of Sun Tzŭ himself. In this way, the clouds of confusion
have been dispersed and the sayings made clear. I am convinced that the
present work deserves to be handed down side by side with the three
great commentaries; and for a great deal that they find in the sayings,
coming generations will have constant reason to thank my friend
Sheng-yu.

Making some allowance for the exuberance of friendship, I am inclined
to endorse this favourable judgment, and would certainly place him above
Ch’en Hao in order of merit.
9. WANG HSI, also of the Sung dynasty, is decidedly original in some of
his interpretations, but much less judicious than Mei Yao-ch’en, 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. [45]
10. HO YEN-HSI of the Sung dynasty. The personal name of this
commentator is given as above by Cheng Ch’iao in the _Tung Chih_,
written about the middle of the twelfth century, but he appears simply
as Ho Shih in the _Yu 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 Cheng Ch’iao’s statement, otherwise I should have been
inclined to hazard a guess and identify him with one Ho Ch’u-fei, the
author of a short treatise on war, who lived in the latter part of the
11th century. Ho Shih’s commentary, in the words of the _T’ien-i-ko_
catalogue, "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. CHANG YU. The list closes with a commentator of no great
originality perhaps, but gifted with admirable powers of lucid