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.
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. 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
- T‘ung Kao, ch. 221, f. 11 r°: 晳以古本校正闕誤.
- See 四庫全書, ch. 99, f. 16 v°.