Sun Tzǔ can boast an exceptionally long distinguished roll of commentators, which would do honor 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 inexhaustible, must therefore be susceptible of treatment in a great variety of ways. 93
曹操 Tsʽao Tsʽao or 曹公 Tsʽao Kung , afterwards known as 魏武帝 Wei Wu Ti ( AD 155–220). There is hardly any room for doubt that the earliest commentary on Sun Tzǔ 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 marvelous rapidity of his marches, which has found expression in the line 說曹操曹操就到 “Talk of Tsʽao Tsʽao , and Tsʽao Tsʽao 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 Tsʽao Kung’s notes on Sun Tzǔ , 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. 96 As we have seen, Tsʽao Kung is the reputed author of the 新書 , a book of war in 100,000 odd words, now lost, but mentioned in the 魏志 . 97
孟氏 Mêng 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 Tʽien-pao’s edition places him after Chia Lin , and 鼂公武 Chʽao Kung-wu also assigns him to the Tʽang dynasty, 98 but this is 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 Kʽang of the 3rd century. In the 宋史藝文志 , 99 he is named in one work as the last of the 五家 “Five Commentators,” the others being Wei Wu Ti , Tu Mu , Chʽên Hao and Chia Lin .
李筌 Li Chʽüan 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 Tʽang 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 Chʽao Kung-wu and the Tʽien-i-ko catalogue, 101 he followed the 太乙遁甲 text of Sun Tzǔ 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.
杜佑 Tu Yu (died 812) did not publish a separate commentary on Sun Tzǔ , his notes being taken from the Tʽung Tien , the encyclopedic treatise on the Constitution which was his lifework. They are largely repetitions of Tsʽao 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 Tʽung 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 Tsʽao 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 Tʽien-pao , being wrongly placed after his grandson Tu Mu .
杜牧 Tu Mu (803–852) is perhaps the best known as a poet—a bright star even in the glorious galaxy of the Tʽang period. We learn from Chʽao 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 Chʽun Chʽiu 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 Tzǔ’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.” 103 He further declared that all the military 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 Tsʽao Kung has already been considered elsewhere.
陳皡 Chʽên Hao appears to have been a contemporary of Tu Mu . Chʽao Kung-wu says that he was impelled to write a new commentary on Sun Tzǔ because Tsʽao 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 Tsʽao Kung , Tu Mu and Chʽên Hao the three chief commentators on Sun Tzǔ ( 三家 ), and observes that Chʽên Hao is continually attacking Tu Mu’s shortcomings. His commentary, though not lacking in merit, must rank below those of his predecessors.
賈林 Chia Lin is known to have lived under the Tʽang dynasty, for his commentary on Sun Tzǔ 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.
梅堯臣 Mei Yao-chʽên (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:—
Later scholars have misread Sun Tzǔ , 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 Shêng-yü has not fallen into this mistake. In attempting to provide a critical commentary for Sun Tzǔ’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, 107 nor with the nine punitive measures prescribed to the Minister of War. 108 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 Shêng-yü has brushed aside all the obstinate prejudices of these critics, and has tried to bring out the true meaning of Sun Tzǔ 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 Shêng-yü . 109
Making some allowance for the exuberance of friendship, I am inclined to endorse this favourable judgment, and would certainly place him above Chʽên Hao in order of merit.
王皙 Wang Hsi , also of the Sung dynasty, is decidedly original in some of his interpretations, but much less judicious than Mei Yao-chʽên , and on the whole not a very trustworthy guide. He is fond of comparing his own commentary with that of Tsʽao Kung , but the comparison is not often flattering to him. We learn from Chʽao Kung-wu that Wang Hsi revised the ancient text of Sun Tzǔ , filling up lacunae and correcting mistakes. 110
何延錫 Ho Yen-hsi of the Sung dynasty. The personal name of this commentator is given as above by 鄭樵 Chêng Chʽiao in the Tʽung Chih , written about the middle of the twelfth century, but he appears simply as 何氏 Ho Shih in the Yu Hai , and Ma Tuan-lin quotes Chʽao Kung-wu as saying that his personal name is unknown. There seems to be no reason to doubt Chêng Chʽiao’s statement, otherwise I should have been inclined to hazard a guess and identify him with one 何去非 Ho Chʽü-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 Tʽien-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.
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 Tsʽao Kung , whose terse sentences he contrives to expand and develop in masterly fashion. Without Chang Yü , it is safe to say that much of Tsʽao Kung’s commentary would have remained cloaked in its pristine obscurity and therefore valueless. His work is not mentioned in the Sung history, the Tʽung Kʽao , or the Yu Hai , but it finds a niche in the Tʽung 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. Chʽao 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 practice 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 inquiry for men skilled in war, and military topics became the vogue amongst all the high officials. Hence it is that the commentators of Sun Tzǔ 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 ); 張子尚 Chang Tzǔ-shang ; 賈詡 Chia Hsü of 魏 Wei ; 114 and 沈友 Shên Yu of 吳 Wu . The Tʽang Shu adds 孫鎬 Sun Hao , and the Tʽung Chih 蕭吉 Hsiao Chi , while the Tʽu 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 Tʽien-pao and Chi Hsieh , mentioned above. Certainly in the case of the latter, the entry 紀燮注孫子 in the Tʽung Kʽao , 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 Kʽu Chʽüan 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 Tsʽai ; and 黃治徵 Huang Chih-chêng . The other work is 孫子彙徵 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 Tzǔ’s 13 chapters.