[63] Ssŭ-ma Jang-chü, whose family name was 田 T‘ien, lived in the latter half of the 6th century B.C., and is also believed to have written a work on war. See _Shih Chi_, ch. 64, and _infra_, p. 1. [64] 自周之盛至春秋凡將兵者必與聞國政未有特將於外者六國時此制始改吳雖蠻夷而孫武爲 大將乃不爲命卿而左氏無傳焉可乎故凡謂穰苴孫武者皆辯士妄相標指非事實其言闔閭試以婦 人尤爲奇險不足信. [65] See the end of the passage quoted from the _Shih Chi_ on p. xii. [66] In the 書錄解題, a classified catalogue of his family library. [67] See _Wên Hsien T‘ung K‘ao_, ch. 221, f. 9 _r_^o: 世之言兵者祖孫武然 孫武事吳闔閭而不見於左傳不知果何時人也. [68] See _Hsü Lu_, f. 14 _r_^o: 孫吳或是古書. [69] 按孫子生於敬王之代故周秦兩漢諸書皆多襲用其文. Here is a list of the passages in Sun Tzŭ from which either the substance or the actual words have been appropriated by early authors: VII. 9; IX. 17; I. 24 (戰國策). IX. 23; IX. 1, 3, 7; V. 1; III. 18; XI. 58; VII. 31; VII. 24; VII. 26; IX. 15; IX. 4 (_bis_) (吳子). III. 8; IV. 7 (尉繚子). VII. 19; V. 14; III. 2 (鶡冠子). III. 8; XI. 2; I. 19; XI. 58; X. 10 & VI. 1 (史記. Two of the above are given as quotations). V. 13; IV. 2 (呂氏春秋). IX. 11, 12; XI. 30; I. 13; VII. 19 & IV. 7; VII. 32; VII. 25; IV. 20 & V. 23; IX. 43; V. 15; VII. 26; V. 4 & XI. 39; VIII. 11; VI. 4 (淮南子). V. 4 (太元經). II. 20; X. 14 (潛夫論). [70] See Legge’s Classics, vol. V, Prolegomena p. 27. Legge thinks that the _Tso Chuan_ must have been written in the 5th century, but not before 424 B.C. [71] The instances quoted are:—III. 14, 15: 同 is said to be equivalent to 昌; II. 15: 𦮼 = 萁; VII. 28: 歸 = 息; XI. 60: 詳 = 佯; XI. 24: the use of 鬥 instead of 鬭 (the later form); XI. 64: 誅 = 治; IX. 3: 絶 = 越; III. 11: 周 and 隙 antithetically opposed in the sense of 無缺 and 有缺; XI. 56: 犯 = 動; XI. 31: 方 = 縛. [72] See _Mencius_ III. 1. iii. 13–20. [73] 山林處士 need not be pressed to mean an actual dweller in the mountains. I think it simply denotes a person living a retired life and standing aloof from public affairs. [74] When Wu first appears in the _Ch‘un Ch‘iu_ in 584, it is already at variance with its powerful neighbour. The _Ch‘un Ch‘iu_ first mentions Yüeh in 537, the _Tso Chuan_ in 601. [75] This is explicitly stated in the _Tso Chuan_, 昭公 XXXII, 2: 夏吳伐越始用師於越也. [76] There is this to be said for the later period, that the feud would tend to grow more bitter after each encounter, and thus more fully justify the language used in XI. § 30. [77] See his preface to Sun Tzŭ:—入郢威齊晉之功歸之子胥故春秋傳不載其名葢功成不 受官. [78] With Wu Yüan himself the case is just the reverse:—a spurious treatise on war has been fathered on him simply because he was a great general. Here we have an obvious inducement to forgery. Sun Wu, on the other hand, cannot have been widely known to fame in the 5th century. [79] See _Tso Chuan_, 定公, 4th year (506), § 14: 自昭王卽位無歲不有吳師 “From the date of King Chao’s accession [515] there was no year in which Ch‘u was not attacked by Wu.” [80] See _supra_, p. xx. [81] 秦漢已來用兵皆用其法而或祕其書不肯注以傳世魏武始爲之注. [82] See 宋藝文志. [83] Alluded to on p. xvii, note 3. [84] _Loc. cit._: 葢宋人又從大興朱氏處見明人刻本餘則世無傳者.