(1) By commanding the army to advance or to retreat, being ignorant of the fact that it cannot obey. This is called hobbling the army. Ts‘ao Kung weakly defines 縻 as 御 “control,” “direct.” Cf. § 17 _ad fin._ But in reality it is one of those graphic metaphors which from time to time illuminate Sun Tzŭ’s work, and is rightly explained by Li Ch‘üan as = 絆. He adds the comment: 如絆驥足無馳驟也. “It is like tying together the legs of a thoroughbred, so that it is unable to gallop.” One would naturally think of “the ruler” in this passage as being at home, and trying to direct the movements of his army from a distance. But the commentators understand just the reverse, and quote the saying of T‘ai Kung: 國不可以從外治軍不可以從中御 “A kingdom should not be governed from without, an army should not be directed from within.” Of course it is true that, during an engagement, or when in close touch with the enemy, the general should not be in the thick of his own troops, but a little distance apart. Otherwise, he will be liable to misjudge the position as a whole, and give wrong orders. 14. 不知三軍之事而同三軍之政者則軍士惑矣 (2) By attempting to govern an army in the same way as he administers a kingdom, being ignorant of the conditions which obtain in an army. This causes restlessness in the soldier’s minds. Ts‘ao Kung’s note is: 軍容不入國國容不入軍禮不可以治兵也, which may be freely translated: “The military sphere and the civil sphere are wholly distinct; you can’t handle an army in kid gloves.” And Chang Yü says: “Humanity and justice (仁義) are the principles on which to govern a state, but not an army; opportunism and flexibility (權變), on the other hand, are military rather than civic virtues.” 同三軍之政, “to assimilate the governing of an army”—to that of a State, understood. The _T‘ung Tien_ has 欲 inserted before 同, here and in § 15. 15. 不知三軍之權而同三軍之任則軍士疑矣 (3) By employing the officers of his army without discrimination, That is, he is not careful to use the right man in the right place. through ignorance of the military principle of adaptation to circumstances. This shakes the confidence of the soldiers. I follow Mei Yao-ch‘ên here. The other commentators make 不知 etc. refer, not to the ruler, as in §§ 13, 14, but to the officers he employs. Thus Tu Yu says: 將若不知權變不可付以勢位 “If a general is ignorant of the principle of adaptability, he must not be entrusted with a position of authority.” Tu Mu quotes 黃石公: “The skilful employer of men will employ the wise man, the brave man, the covetous man, and the stupid man. For the wise man delights in establishing his merit, the brave man likes to show his courage in action, the covetous man is quick at seizing advantages, and the stupid man has no fear of death.” The _T‘ung Tien_ reads 軍覆疑, which Tu Yu explains as 覆敗 “is utterly defeated.” Capt. Calthrop gives a very inaccurate rendering: “Ignorant of the situation of the army, to interfere in its dispositions.”