Open main menu

Bibliography.

The following are the oldest Chinese treatises on war, after Sun Tzfi. The notes on each have been drawn principally from the [E] Ii é % 159} E Ssa‘z k‘u c/z‘z'icm s/m ckz'm Ming mu 1%, ch. 9, fol. 22 39g.

I. 3’3 ¥ Wu Tzfi, in I ckz'icm or 6 % chapters. By 5% it: Wu Ch‘i (6!. BC. 381). A genuine work. See Ski/z CM, ch. 65.

2. fl ,% 55E SSfi-ma Fa, in I c/zz'icm or 5 chapters. Wrongly attributed to E] ,% H Ssu-ma jang-chii of the 6th century BC. Its date, however, must be early, as the customs of the three ancient dynasties are con- stantly to be met with in its pages. 1 See S/zz’k 6712', ch. 64.

The Sm K‘u C/z‘z'icm S/m (ch. 99, f. I) remarks that the oldest three treatises on war, 52m T227, Wu T232 and the Sui—ma Fa, are, generally speaking, only concerned with things strictly military — the art of producing, col- lecting, training and drilling troops, and the correct theory with regard to measures of expediency, laying plans, trans— port of goods and the handling of soldiers2 — in strong contrast to later works, in which the science of war is usually blended with metaphysics, divination and magical arts in general.

3. 7'; fig Liu T‘ao, in 6 c/zz'icm or 60 chapters. At— tributed to a 3:? Ln Wang (or Lii fi'fl‘ Shang, also

known as j; (2} T‘ai Kung) of the 1 2th century BC.3 But its style does not belong to the era of the Three Dynasties. 1 [1515: {gt [9] Lu Te—ming (550—625 A.D.) mentions the work, and enumerates the headings of the six sections, 17, if, R, g4], Egg and 7%, so that the forgery cannot have been later than the Sui dynasty.

4. ¥ Wei Liao Tzfi, in 5 c/zz'ian. Attributed to Wei Liao (4th cent. B.C.), who studied under the famous fig Kg". ¥ Kuei-ku Tzfi. The fig, under 75,: 3‘2, men- tions a book of Wei Liao in 31 chapters, whereas the text we possess contains only 24. Its matter is sound enough in the main, though the strategical devices differ considerably from those of the Warring States period. 2 It has been furnished with a commentary by the well- known Sung philosopher 3% ii Chang Tsai.

5. E 3% San Liieh, in 3 c/zz’icm. Attributed to E: E (A Huang-shih Kung, a legendary personage who is said to have bestowed it on Chang Liang (d. B.C. 187) in an interview on a bridge. 3 But here again, the style is not. that of works dating from the Ch‘in or Han period. The Han Emperor Kuang Wu [A.D. 2 5—57] apparently quotes from it in one of his proclamations; but the passage in question may have been inserted later on, in order to prove the genuineness of the work. We shall not be far out if we refer it to the Northern Sung period [420—478 A.D.], or somewhat earlier. 4 6. 35 1% A flfl £5]- Li Wei Kung Wén Tui, in 3 sections. Written in the form of a dialogue between T‘ai Tsung and his great general $ fifi Li Ching, it is usually ascribed to the latter. Competent authorities consider it a forgery, though the author was evidently well versed in the art of war. 1

7. $ fi 75‘: 5% Li Ching Ping Fa (not to be confounded with the foregoing) is a short treatise in 8 chapters, preserved in the Tang Tim, but not published separately. This fact explains its omission from the 5322’ K‘u C/z‘z'icm Sim.

8. *5 i? fl Wu Ch‘i Ching, 2 in 1 c/zz'ian. Attributed to the legendary minister m E; Féng Hou, with exegetical notes by A 5%; 292—”; Kung-sun Hung of the Han dynasty ((1. BC. 121), and said to have been eulogised by the celebrated general ,% Ma Lung (d. A.D. 300). Yet the earliest mention of it is in the 5R Although a forgery, the work is well put together.3

Considering the high popular estimation in which % Effie Chu-ko Liang has always been held, it is not sur— prising to find more than one work on war ascribed to his pen. Such are (1) the + 7'; Shih Liu Ts‘é (1 Milan), preserved in the 7']; % j: £13; Yang L0 Ta Tim,- (2) 11% ‘55, Chiang Yfian (1 ca); and (3) :1‘1‘ % Hsin Shu (1 CIA), which steals wholesale from Sun Tzu. None of these has the slightest claim to be considered genuine. Most of the large Chinese encyclopaedias contain extensive sections devoted to the literature of war. The following references may be found useful: —

通典 T‘ung Tien (circâ 800 A.D.), ch. 148-162.

太平御覽 T‘ai P‘ing Yü Lan (983), ch. 270-359.

文獻通考 Wên Hsien T‘ung K‘ao (13th cent.), ch. 221.

玉海 Yü Hai (13th cent.), ch. 140, 141.

三才圖會 San Ts‘ai T‘u Hui (16th cent.), 人事 ch. 7, 8.

廣博物志 Kuang Po Wu Chih (1607), ch. 31, 32.

潛確類書 Ch‘ien Ch‘io Lei Shu (1632), ch. 75.

淵鑑類函 Yüan Chien Lei Han (1710), ch. 206-229.

古今圖書集成 Ku Chin T‘u Shu Chi Ch‘êng (1726), section XXX, esp. ch. 81-90.

續文獻通考 Hsü Wên Hsien T‘ung K‘ao (1784), ch. 121-134.

皇朝經世文編 Huang Ch‘ao Ching Shih Wên Pien (1826), ch. 76, 77.

The bibliographical sections of certain historical works also deserve mention: —

前漢書 Ch‘ien Han Shu, ch. 30.

隋書 Sui Shu, ch. 32-35.

舊唐書 Chiu T‘ang Shu, ch. 46, 47.

新唐書 Hsin T‘ang Shu, ch. 57-60.

宋史 Sung Shih, ch. 202-209.

通志 T‘ung Chih (circâ 1150), ch. 68.

To these of course must be added the great Catalogue of the Imperial Library: —

四庫全書總目提要 Ssŭ K‘u Ch‘üan Shu Tsung Mu T‘i Yao (1790), ch. 99, 100.