LIONEL GILES, M.A.
Assistant in the Department of Oriental Printed Books and MSS. in
the British Museum
First Published in 1910
——————————————————————————————
——-
To my brother Captain Valentine Giles,
R.G. in the hope that a work 2400
years old may yet contain lessons worth
consideration by the soldier of
today this translation is affectionately dedicated.
——————————————————————————————
——-
Preface to the Project Gutenberg Etext —————————————
——————
When Lionel Giles began his translation of Sun Tzu's ART OF WAR,
the work was virtually unknown in Europe. Its introduction to Europe
began in 1782 when a French Jesuit Father living in China, Joseph
Amiot, acquired a copy of it, and translated it into French. It was not a
good translation because, according to Dr. Giles, "[I]t contains a great
deal that Sun Tzu did not write, and very little indeed of what he did."
The first translation into English was published in 1905 in Tokyo by
Capt. E. F. Calthrop, R.F.A. However, this translation is, in the words
of Dr. Giles, "excessively bad." He goes further in this criticism: "It is not merely a question of downright blunders, from which none can
hope to be wholly exempt. Omissions were frequent; hard passages
were willfully distorted or slurred over. Such offenses are less
pardonable. They would not be tolerated in any edition of a Latin or
Greek classic, and a similar standard of honesty ought to be insisted
upon in translations from Chinese." In 1908 a new edition of Capt.
Calthrop's translation was published in London. It was an
improvement on the first — omissions filled up and numerous
mistakes corrected — but new errors were created in the process. Dr.
Giles, in justifying his translation, wrote: "It was not undertaken out of
any inflated estimate of my own powers; but I could not help feeling
that Sun Tzu 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." Clearly, Dr. Giles' work established much of the
groundwork for the work of later translators who published their own
editions. Of the later editions of the ART OF WAR I have examined;
two feature Giles' edited translation and notes, the other two present
the same basic information from the ancient Chinese commentators
found in the Giles edition. Of these four, Giles' 1910 edition is the
most scholarly and presents the reader an incredible amount of
information concerning Sun Tzu's text, much more than any other
translation. The Giles' edition of the ART OF WAR, as stated above,
was a scholarly work. Dr. Giles was a leading sinologue at the time
and an assistant in the Department of Oriental Printed Books and
Manuscripts in the British Museum. Apparently he wanted to produce
a definitive edition, superior to anything else that existed and perhaps
something that would become a standard translation. It was the best
translation available for 50 years. But apparently there was not much
interest in Sun Tzu in English- speaking countries since it took the
start of the Second World War to renew interest in his work. Several
people published unsatisfactory English translations of Sun Tzu. In
1944, Dr. Giles' translation was edited and published in the United
States in a series of military science books. But it wasn't until 1963
that a good English translation (by Samuel B. Griffith and still in print)
was published that was an equal to Giles' translation. While this
translation is more lucid than Dr. Giles' translation, it lacks his
copious notes that make his so interesting. Dr. Giles produced a work
primarily intended for scholars of the Chinese civilization and
language. It contains the Chinese text of Sun Tzu, the English
translation, and voluminous notes along with numerous footnotes.
Unfortunately, some of his notes and footnotes contain Chinese
characters; some are completely Chinese. Thus, a conversion to a
Latin alphabet etext was difficult. I did the conversion in complete
ignorance of Chinese (except for what I learned while doing the
conversion). Thus, I faced the difficult task of paraphrasing it while
retaining as much of the important text as I could. Every paraphrase
represents a loss; thus I did what I could to retain as much of the text
as possible. Because the 1910 text contains a Chinese concordance,
I was able to transliterate proper names, books, and the like at the
risk of making the text more obscure. However, the text, on the
whole, is quite satisfactory for the casual reader, a transformation
made possible by conversion to an etext. However, I come away from
this task with the feeling of loss because I know that someone with a
background in Chinese can do a better job than I did; any such
attempt would be welcomed.
Bob Sutton al876@cleveland.freenet.edu bobs@gnu.ai.mit.edu
——————————————————————————————
——- INTRODUCTION
Sun Wu and his Book —————————-
Ssu-ma Chìen gives the following biography of Sun Tzu: [1] —
Sun Tzu Wu was a native of the Chì State. His ART OF WAR
brought him to the notice of Ho Lu, [2] King of Wu. Ho Lu said to him:
"I have carefully perused your 13 chapters. May I submit your theory
of managing soldiers to a slight test?" Sun Tzu replied: "You may."
Ho Lu asked: "May the test be applied to women?" The answer was
again in the affirmative, so arrangements were made to bring 180
ladies out of the Palace. Sun Tzu divided them into two companies,
and placed one of the King's favorite concubines at the head of each.
He then bade them all take spears in their hands, and addressed
them thus: "I presume you know the difference between front and
back, right hand and left hand?" The girls replied: Yes. Sun Tzu went
on: "When I say "Eyes front," you must look straight ahead. When I say "Left turn," you must face towards your left hand. When I say
"Right turn," you must face towards your right hand. When I say
"About turn," you must face right round towards your back." Again the girls assented. The words of command having been thus explained,
he set up the halberds and battle-axes in order to begin the drill.
Then, to the sound of drums, he gave the order "Right turn." But the
girls only burst out laughing. Sun Tzu said: "If words of command are
not clear and distinct, if orders are not thoroughly understood, then
the general is to blame." So he started drilling them again, and this
time gave the order "Left turn," whereupon the girls once more burst
into fits of laughter. Sun Tzu: "If words of command are not clear and
distinct, if orders are not thoroughly understood, the general is to
blame. But if his orders ARE clear, and the soldiers nevertheless
disobey, then it is the fault of their officers." So saying, he ordered the leaders of the two companies to be beheaded. Now the king of Wu
was watching the scene from the top of a raised pavilion; and when
he saw that his favorite concubines were about to be executed, he
was greatly alarmed and hurriedly sent down the following message:
"We are now quite satisfied as to our general's ability to handle
troops. If We are bereft of these two concubines, our meat and drink
will lose their savor. It is our wish that they shall not be beheaded."
Sun Tzu replied: "Having once received His Majesty's commission to
be the general of his forces, there are certain commands of His
Majesty which, acting in that capacity, I am unable to accept."
Accordingly, he had the two leaders beheaded, and straightway
installed the pair next in order as leaders in their place. When this
had been done, the drum was sounded for the drill once more; and
the girls went through all the evolutions, turning to the right or to the
left, marching ahead or wheeling back, kneeling or standing, with
perfect accuracy and precision, not venturing to utter a sound. Then
Sun Tzu sent a messenger to the King saying: "Your soldiers, Sire,
are now properly drilled and disciplined, and ready for your majesty's
inspection. They can be put to any use that their sovereign may
desire; bid them go through fire and water, and they will not disobey."
But the King replied: "Let our general cease drilling and return to
camp. As for us, We have no wish to come down and inspect the
troops." Thereupon Sun Tzu said: "The King is only fond of words,
and cannot translate them into deeds." After that, Ho Lu saw that Sun
Tzu was one who knew how to handle an army, and finally appointed
him general. In the west, he defeated the Chù State and forced his
way into Ying, the capital; to the north he put fear into the States of
Chì and Chin, and spread his fame abroad amongst the feudal
princes. And Sun Tzu shared in the might of the King.
About Sun Tzu himself this is all that Ssu-ma Chìen has to tell us in
this chapter. But he proceeds to give a biography of his descendant,
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 Tzu, and in his preface we read:
"Sun Tzu had his feet cut off and yet continued to discuss the art of
war." [3] It seems likely, then, that "Pin" was a nickname bestowed on him after his mutilation, unless the story was invented in order to
account for the name. The crowning incident of his career, the
crushing defeat of his treacherous rival Pàng Chuan, will be found
briefly related in Chapter V. ss. 19, note. To return to the elder Sun
Tzu. He is mentioned in two other passages of the SHIH CHI: —
In the third year of his reign [512 B.C.] Ho Lu, king of Wu, took the
field with Tzu-hsu [i.e. Wu Yuan] and Po Pèi, and attacked Chù. He
captured the town of Shu and slew the two prince's sons who had
formerly been generals of Wu. He was then meditating a descent on
Ying [the capital]; but the general Sun Wu said: "The army is
exhausted. It is not yet possible. We must wait"…. [After further
successful fighting,] "in the ninth year [506 B.C.], King Ho Lu
addressed Wu Tzu-hsu and Sun Wu, saying: "Formerly, you declared
that it was not yet possible for us to enter Ying. Is the time ripe now?"
The two men replied: "Chù's general Tzu-chàng, [4] is grasping and
covetous, and the princes of Tàng and Tsài both have a grudge
against him. If Your Majesty has resolved to make a grand attack,
you must win over Tàng and Tsài, and then you may succeed." Ho
Lu followed this advice, [beat Chù in five pitched battles and
marched into Ying.] [5]
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 another chapter there occurs this
passage: [6]
From this time onward, a number of famous soldiers arose, one after
the other: Kao-fan, [7] who was employed by the Chin State; Wang-
tzu, [8] in the service of Chì; and Sun Wu, in the service of Wu.
These men developed and threw light upon the principles of war.
It is obvious enough that Ssu-ma Chìen 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 WU YUEH CHÙN CHÌU, which is
supposed to have been written by 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 Tzu will be found,
for what it is worth, in chapter 2. The only new points in it worth noting
are: (1) Sun Tzu was first recommended to Ho Lu by Wu Tzu-hsu. (2)
He is called a native of Wu. (3) He had previously lived a retired life,
and his contemporaries were unaware of his ability. The following
passage occurs in the Huai-nan Tzu: "When sovereign and ministers
show perversity of mind, it is impossible even for a Sun Tzu to
encounter the foe." Assuming that this work is genuine (and hitherto
no doubt has been cast upon it), we have here the earliest direct
reference for Sun Tzu, for Huai-nan Tzu died in 122 B.C., many years
before the SHIH CHI was given to the world. Liu Hsiang (80-9 B.C.)
says: "The reason why Sun Tzu at the head of 30,000 men beat Chù
with 200,000 is that the latter were undisciplined." Teng Ming-shih
informs us that the surname "Sun" was bestowed on Sun Wu's
grandfather by Duke Ching of Chì [547-490 B.C.]. Sun Wu's father
Sun Pìng, rose to be a Minister of State in Chì, and Sun Wu himself,
whose style was Chàng-chìng, fled to Wu on account of the
rebellion which was being fomented by the kindred of Tìen Pao. He
had three sons, of whom the second, named Ming, was the father of
Sun Pin. According to this account then, Pin was the grandson of Wu,
which, considering that Sun Pin's victory over Wei was gained in 341
B.C., may be dismissed as chronological impossible. Whence these
data were obtained by Teng 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 Tsào Tsào, or Wei Wu Ti, for his edition
of Sun Tzu. I shall give it in full: —
I have heard that the ancients used bows and arrows to their
advantage. [10] The SHU CHU mentions "the army" among the "eight
objects of government." The I CHING says: "'army' indicates firmness
and justice; the experienced leader will have good fortune." The SHIH
CHING says: "The King rose majestic in his wrath, and he marshaled
his troops." The Yellow Emperor, Tàng the Completer and Wu Wang
all used spears and battle-axes in order to succor their generation.
The SSU-MA FA says: "If one man slay another of set purpose, he
himself may rightfully be slain." He who relies solely on warlike
measures shall be exterminated; he who relies solely on peaceful
measures shall perish. Instances of this are Fu Chài [11] on the one
hand and Yen Wang on the other. [12] In military matters, the Sage's
rule is normally to keep the peace, and to move his forces only when
occasion requires. He will not use armed force unless driven to it by
necessity. Many books have I read on the subject of war and fighting;
but the work composed by Sun Wu is the profoundest of them all.
[Sun Tzu was a native of the Chì state, his personal name was Wu.
He wrote the ART OF WAR in 13 chapters for Ho Lu, King of Wu. Its
principles were tested on women, and he was subsequently made a
general. He led an army westwards, crushed the Chù state and
entered Ying the capital. In the north, he kept Chì and Chin in awe. A
hundred years and more after his time, Sun Pin lived. He was a
descendant of Wu.] [13] In his treatment of deliberation and planning,
the importance of rapidity in taking the field, [14] clearness of
conception, and depth of design, Sun Tzu stands beyond the reach of
carping criticism. My contemporaries, however, have failed to grasp
the full meaning of his instructions, and while putting into practice the
smaller details in which his work abounds, they have overlooked its
essential purport. That is the motive which has led me to outline a
rough explanation of the whole.
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. ss. 15, in which it seems clear
that some ruler is addressed. In the bibliographic section of the HAN
SHU, there is an entry which has given rise to much discussion: "The
works of Sun Tzu of Wu in 82 PÌEN (or chapters), with diagrams in 9
CHUAN." It is evident that this cannot be merely the 13 chapters
known to Ssu-ma Chìen, or those we possess today. Chang Shou-
chieh refers to an edition of Sun Tzu's ART OF WAR of which the "13
chapters" formed the first CHUAN, adding that there were two other
CHUAN besides. This has brought forth a theory, that the bulk of
these 82 chapters consisted of other writings of Sun Tzu — we
should call them apocryphal — similar to the WEN TA, of which a
specimen dealing with the Nine Situations [15] is preserved in the
TÙNG TIEN, and another in Ho Shin's commentary. It is suggested
that before his interview with Ho Lu, Sun Tzu 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. Pi I-hsun, the
author of the SUN TZU HSU LU, backs this up with a quotation from
the WU YUEH CHÙN CHÌU: "The King of Wu summoned Sun Tzu,
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." 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. Then the numerous other
treatises attributed to Sun Tzu might be included. The fact that the
HAN CHIH mentions no work of Sun Tzu except the 82 PÌEN,
whereas the Sui and Tàng bibliographies give the titles of others in
addition to the "13 chapters," is good proof, Pi I-hsun thinks, that all of these were contained in the 82 PÌEN. Without pinning our faith to the
accuracy of details supplied by the WU YUEH CHÙN CHÌU, or
admitting the genuineness of any of the treatises cited by Pi I-hsun,
we may see in this theory a probable solution of the mystery.
Between Ssu-ma Chìen and Pan Ku there was plenty of time for a
luxuriant crop of forgeries to have grown up under the magic name of
Sun Tzu, and the 82 PÌEN may very well represent a collected
edition of these lumped together with the original work. It is also
possible, though less likely, that some of them existed in the time of
the earlier historian and were purposely ignored by him. [16] Tu Mu's
conjecture seems to be based on a passage which states: "Wei Wu
Ti strung together Sun Wu's Art of War," which in turn may have
resulted from a misunderstanding of the final words of Tsào King's
preface. This, as Sun Hsing-yen points out, is only a modest way of
saying that he made an explanatory paraphrase, or in other words,
wrote a commentary on it. On the whole, this theory has met with
very little acceptance. Thus, the SSU KÙ CHÙAN SHU says: "The
mention of the 13 chapters in the SHIH CHI shows that they were in
existence before the HAN CHIH, and that latter accretions are not to
be considered part of the original work. Tu Mu's assertion can
certainly not be taken as proof." There is every reason to suppose,
then, that the 13 chapters existed in the time of Ssu-ma Chìen
practically as we have them now. That the work was then well known
he tells us in so many words. "Sun Tzu's 13 Chapters and Wu Chì's
Art of War are the two books that people commonly refer to on the
subject of military matters. Both of them are widely distributed, so I
will not discuss them here." But as we go further back, serious
difficulties begin to arise. The salient fact which has to be faced is
that the TSO CHUAN, the greatest contemporary record, makes no
mention whatsoever of Sun Wu, either as a general or as a writer. It
is natural, in view of this awkward circumstance, that many scholars
should not only cast doubt on the story of Sun Wu as given in the
SHIH CHI, but even show themselves frankly skeptical as to the
existence of the man at all. The most powerful presentment of this
side of the case is to be found in the following disposition by Yeh
Shui-hsin: [17] —
It is stated in Ssu-ma Chìen's history that Sun Wu was a
native of the Chì State, and employed by Wu; and that in the reign
of Ho Lu he crushed Chù, entered Ying, and was a great general.
But in Tso's Commentary no Sun Wu appears at all. It is true that
Tso's Commentary need not contain absolutely everything that
other histories contain. But Tso has not omitted to mention vulgar
plebeians and hireling ruffians such as Ying Kào-shu, [18] Tsào
Kuei, [19], Chu Chih-wu and Chuan She-chu [20]. In the case of
Sun Wu, whose fame and achievements were so brilliant, the
omission is much more glaring. Again, details are given, in their
due order, about his contemporaries Wu Yuan and the Minister
Pèi. [21] Is it credible that Sun Wu alone should have been
passed over? In point of literary style, Sun Tzu's work
belongs to the same school as KUAN TZU, [22] LIU TÀO, [23] and
the YUEH YU [24] and may have been the production of some
private scholar living towards the end of the "Spring and Autumn"
or the beginning of the "Warring States" period. [25] The
story that his precepts were actually applied by the Wu State,
is merely the outcome of big talk on the part of his
followers. From the flourishing period of the Chou dynasty
[26] down to the time of the "Spring and Autumn," all
military commanders were statesmen as well, and the class
of professional generals, for conducting external campaigns,
did not then exist. It was not until the period of the "Six States"
[27] that this custom changed. Now although Wu was an
uncivilized State, it is conceivable that Tso should have left
unrecorded the fact that Sun Wu was a great general and yet held
no civil office? What we are told, therefore, about Jang-chu [28]
and Sun Wu, is not authentic matter, but the reckless fabrication of
theorizing pundits. The story of Ho Lu's experiment on the women,
in particular, is utterly preposterous and incredible.
Yeh Shui-hsin represents Ssu-ma Chìen as having said that Sun Wu
crushed Chù and entered Ying. This is not quite correct. No doubt
the impression left on the reader's mind is that he at least shared in
these exploits. The fact may or may not be significant; but it is
nowhere explicitly stated in the SHIH CHI either that Sun Tzu was
general on the occasion of the taking of Ying, or that he even went
there at all. Moreover, as we know that Wu Yuan and Po Pèi 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. Chèn 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 Chì may be of genuine antiquity.
It is noticeable that both Yeh Shui-hsin and Chèn Chen-sun, while
rejecting the personality of Sun Wu as he figures in Ssu-ma Chìen'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
Chèn Chen-sun really misses its mark. He makes one of two points,
however, which certainly tell in favor of the high antiquity of our "13
chapters." "Sun Tzu," he says, "must have lived in the age of Ching Wang [519