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 CH`UN CH`IU:  "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 P`IEN, whereas the Sui
and T`ang 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 P`IEN.  Without pinning our faith
to the accuracy of details supplied by the WU YUEH CH`UN CH`IU,
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 Ch`ien 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 P`IEN 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 Ts`ao 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 K`U CH`UAN 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 Ch`ien 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 Ch`i'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 Ch`ien's history that Sun Wu was
  a native of the Ch`i State, and employed by Wu; and that in
  the reign of Ho Lu he crushed Ch`u, 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 K`ao-shu, [18] Ts`ao 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 P`ei.  [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 T`AO, [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 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 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 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.