Footnotes

[1] Published at Paris in 1782.
[2] A rather distressing Japanese flavour pervades the work throughout. Thus, King Ho Lu masquerades as “Katsuryo,” Wu and Yüeh become “Go” and “Etsu,” etc. etc.
[3] A notable exception is to be found in Biot’s translation of the Chou Li.
[4] Shih Chi, ch. 65.
[5] Also written 闔閭 Ho Lü. He reigned from 514 to 496 B.C.
[6] Shih Chi, ch. 130, f. 6 r^o.
[7] I note that M. Chavannes translates 民勞 “le peuple est épuisé.” But in Sun Tzŭ’s own book (see especially [VII §§ 24–26]) the ordinary meaning of 民 is “army,” and this, I think, is more suitable here.
[8] These words are given also in Wu Tzŭ-hsü’s biography, ch. 66, fol. 3 r^o.
[9] The appellation of 囊瓦 Nang Wa.
[10] Shih Chi, ch. 31, fol. 6 r^o.
[11] Ibid. ch. 25, fol. 1 r^o.
[12] The appellation of 狐偃 Hu Yen, mentioned in ch. 39 under the year 637.
[13] 王子城父 Wang-tzŭ Ch‘êng-fu, ch. 32, year 607.
[14] The mistake is natural enough. Native critics refer to the 越絶書, a work of the Han dynasty, which says (ch. 2, fol. 3 v^o of my edition): 巫門外大冢吳王客齊孫武冢也去縣十里善爲兵法 “Ten li outside the Wu gate [of the city of 吳 Wu, now Soochow in Kiangsu] there is a great mound, raised to commemorate the entertainment of Sun Wu of Ch‘i who excelled in the art of war, by the King of Wu.”
[15] 孫子者吳人也善爲兵法辟幽居世人莫知其能.
[16] 君臣乖心則孫子不能以應敵.
[17] 孫武以三萬破楚二十萬者楚無法故也.
[18] The Shih Chi, on the other hand, says: 臏亦孫武之後世子孫也. I may remark in passing that the name 武 for one who was a great warrior is just as suspicious as 臏 for a man who had his feet cut off.
[19] An allusion to 易經, 繫辭, II. 2: 弦木爲弧剡木爲矢弧矢之利以威天下 “They attached strings to wood to make bows, and sharpened wood to make arrows. The use of bows and arrows is to keep the Empire in awe.”
[20] 論語 XII. 7.
[21] 書經 V. iv. 7.
[22] 易經, 7^th diagram (師).
[23] 詩經 III. 1. vii. 5.
[24] 司馬法 ch. 1 (仁本) ad init. The text of the passage in the 圖書 T‘u Shu (戎政典, ch. 85) is: 是故殺人安人殺之可也.
[25] The son and successor of Ho Lu. He was finally defeated and overthrown by 勾踐 Kou Chien, King of Yüeh, in 473 B.C. See post.
[26] King Yen of 徐 Hsü, a fabulous being, of whom Sun Hsing-yen says in his preface: 仁而敗 “His humanity brought him to destruction.” See Shih Chi ch. 5, f. 1 v^o and M. Chavannes’ note, Mémoires Historiques, tom. II, p. 8.
[27] T‘u Shu, ibid. ch. 90: 操聞上古有弧矢之利論語曰足兵尙書八政曰師易曰師貞丈人吉詩曰王赫斯怒爰征其旅黃帝湯武咸用干戚以濟世也司馬法曰人故殺人殺之可也恃武者滅恃文者亡夫差偃王是也聖人之用兵戢而時動不得已而用之.
[28] The passage I have put in brackets is omitted in the T‘u Shu, and may be an interpolation. It was known, however, to 張守節 Chang Shou-chieh of the T‘ang dynasty, and appears in the T‘ai P‘ing Yü Lan.
[29] Ts‘ao Kung seems to be thinking of the first part of chap. II, perhaps especially of [§ 8].
[30] 吾觀兵書戰策多矣孫武所著深矣孫子者齊人也名武爲吳王闔閭作兵法一十三篇試之婦人卒以爲將西破强楚入郢北威齊晉後百歲餘有孫臏是武之後也審計重舉明畫深圖不可相誣而但世人未之深亮訓說況文煩富行於世者失其旨要故撰爲略解焉.
[31] 漢書藝文志，兵權謀.
[32] The 宋藝文志 mentions two editions of Sun Tzŭ in 3 chüan, namely 孫武孫子 and 朱服校定孫子.
[33] See chap. [XI].
[34] 吳王召孫子問以兵法每陳一篇王不知口之稱善.
[35] 按此皆釋九地篇義辭意甚詳故其篇帙不能不多也.
[36] Such as the 八陣圖, quoted in 鄭玄 Chêng Hsüan’s commentary on the Chou Li, the 戰鬭大甲兵法 and 兵法雜占, mentioned in the 隋志 Sui Chih, and the 三十二壘經, in the Hsin T‘ang Chih.
[37] On the other hand, it is noteworthy that 吳子 Wu Tzŭ, which is now in 6 chapters, has 48 assigned to it in the Han Chih. Likewise, the 中庸 Chung Yung is credited with 49 chapters, though now in one only. In the case of such very short works, one is tempted to think that 篇 might simply mean “leaves.”
[38] See T‘u Shu, 經籍典, ch. 442, 彚考 2.
[39] An extract will be found on p. [xlv].
[40] 武所著書凡數十萬言曹魏武帝削其繁剩筆其精切凡十三篇成爲一編.
[41] 其所爲注解十不釋一此蓋非曹不能盡注解也.
[42] 予尋魏志見曹自作兵書十餘萬言諸將征戰皆以新書從事從令者克捷違教者負敗意曹自於新書中馳驟其說自成一家事業不欲隨孫武後盡解其書不然者曹其不能耶今新書已亡不可復知.
[43] 魏氏瑣連孫武之法.
[44] See 孫子兵法序.
[45] 謙言解其觕略.
[46] Ch. 99, fol. 5 r^o.
[47] 然史記稱十三篇在漢志之前不得以後來附益者爲本書牧之言固未可以爲據也.
[48] Shih Chi, ch. 65 ad fin: 世俗所稱師旅皆道孫子十三篇吳起兵法世多有故弗論.
[49] 葉適 Yeh Shih of the Sung dynasty [1151–1223]. See 文獻通考, ch. 221, ff. 7, 8.
[50] See Tso Chuan 隱公, I. 3 ad fin. and XI. 3 ad init. He hardly deserves to be bracketed with assassins.
[51] See pp. [66], [128].
[52] See Tso Chuan, 僖公, XXX. 5.
[53] See p. [128]. Chuan Chu is the abbreviated form of his name.
[54] I.e. Po P‘ei. See ante.
[55] 遷載孫武齊人而用於吳在闔閭時破楚入郢爲大將按左氏無孫武他書所有左氏不必盡有然穎考叔曹劌燭之武鱄設諸之流微賤暴用事左氏未嘗遺而武功名章灼如此乃更闕又同時伍員宰嚭一一銓次乃獨不及武邪.
[56] The nucleus of this work is probably genuine, though large additions have been made by later hands. Kuan Chung died in 645 B.C.
[57] See Infra, p. 1.
[58] I do not know what work this is, unless it be the last chapter of the 國語. Why that chapter should be singled out, however, is not clear.
[59] About 480 B.C.
[60] 詳味孫子與管子六韜越語相出入春秋末戰國初山林處士所爲其言得用於吳者其徒夸大之說也.
[61] That is, I suppose, the age of Wu Wang and Chou Kung.
[62] In the 3^rd century B.C.
[63] Ssŭ-ma Jang-chü, whose family name was 田 T‘ien, lived in the latter half of the 6^th 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 5^th 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 5^th century.
[79] See Tso Chuan, 定公, 4^th 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.
[85] A good biographical notice, with a list of his works, will be found in the 國朝詩人徵略, ch. 48, fol. 18 sqq.
[86] Preface ad fin.: 吾家出樂安眞孫子之後媿余徒讀祖書考証文字不通方略亦享承平之福者久也 “My family comes from Lo-an, and we are really descended from Sun Tzŭ. I am ashamed to say that I only read my ancestor’s work from a literary point of view, without comprehending the military technique. So long have we been enjoying the blessings of peace!”
[87] Hua-yin is about 14 miles from 潼關 T‘ung-kuan on the eastern border of Shensi. The temple in question is still visited by those about to make the ascent of the 華山 or Western Sacred Mountain. It is mentioned in the 大明一統志 [A.D. 1461], ch. 32, f. 22, as the 西嶽廟:—在華陰縣東五里廟有唐𤣥宗所製華山碑 “Situated five li east of the district city of Hua-yin. The temple contains the Hua-shan tablet inscribed by the T‘ang Emperor Hsüan Tsung [713–755].”
[88] 曩予游𨵿中讀華陰嶽廟道藏見有此書後有鄭友賢遺說一卷.
[89] Cf. Sun Hsing-yen’s remark à propos of his mistakes in the names and order of the commentators: 吉天保之不深究此書可知.
[90] 國家令甲以孫子校士所傳本或多錯謬當用古本是正其文適吳念湖太守畢恬溪孝廉皆爲此學所得或過于予遂刋一編以課武士.
[91] See my “Catalogue of Chinese Books” (Luzac & Co., 1908), no. 40.
[92] This is a discussion of 29 difficult passages in Sun Tzŭ, namely: I. 2; 26; 16; II. 9 & 10; III. 3; III & VII; III. 17; IV. 4; 6; V. 3; 10 & 11; 14; the headings of the 13 chapters, with special reference to chap. VII; VII. 5; 15 & 16; 27; 33, &c.; VIII. 1–6; IX. 11; X. 1–20; XI. 23; 31; 19; 43; VII. 12–14 & XI. 52; XI. 56; XIII. 15 & 16; 26; XIII in general.
[93] Preface to Mei Yao-ch‘ên’s edition: 孫子注者尤多武之書本於兵兵之術非一而以不窮爲奇宜其說者之多也.
[94] See 魏書, ch. 1.
[95] Loc. cit.: 然前世言善用兵稱曹公曹公嘗與董呂諸袁角其力而勝之遂與吳蜀分漢而王傳言魏之將出兵千里每坐計勝敗授其成算諸將用之十不失一一有違者兵輒敗北.
[96] Cf. 天一閣藏書總目 Catalogue of the library of the 范 Fan family at Ningpo, 子部, fol. 12 v^o: 其註多隱辭引而不發 “His commentary is frequently obscure; it furnishes a clue, but does not fully develop the meaning.”
[97] See 玉海, ch. 141 ad init.
[98] Wên Hsien T‘ung K‘ao, ch. 221, f. 9 v^o.
[99] Ch. 207, f. 5 r^o.
[100] It is interesting to note that M. Pelliot has recently discovered chapters 1, 4 and 5 of this lost work in the “Grottos of the Thousand Buddhas.” See B. E. F. E. O, t. VIII, nos. 3–4, p. 525.
[101] Loc. cit.
[102] Wên Hsien T‘ung K‘ao, ch. 221, f. 9: 世謂牧慨然最喜論兵欲試而不得者其學能道春秋戰國時事甚博而詳知兵者有取焉.
[103] Preface to his commentary (T‘u Shu, 經籍典, ch. 442): 武之所論大約用仁義使機權也.
[104] Ibid.: 自武死後凡千歲將兵者有成者有敗者勘其事跡皆與武所著書一一相抵當.
[105] T‘ung K‘ao, loc. cit.: 皥以曹公注隱微杜牧注闊踈重爲之注云.
[106] Ibid.
[107] The Hsia, the Shang and the Chou. Although the last-named was nominally existent in Sun Tzŭ’s day, it retained hardly a vestige of power, and the old military organisation had practically gone by the board. I can suggest no other explanation of the passage.
[108] See Chou Li, XXIX. 6–10.
[109] See T‘u Shu, 戎政典, ch. 90, f. 2 v^o: 後之學者徒見其書又各牽於己見是以注者雖多而少當也獨吾友聖兪不然嘗評武之書曰此戰國相傾之說也三代王者之師司馬九伐之法武不及也然亦愛其文略而意深其行師用兵料敵制勝亦皆有法其言甚有序次而注者汨之或失其意乃自爲注凡膠于偏見者皆抉去傅以己意而發之然後武之說不汨而明吾知此書當與三家並傳而後世取其說者往往于吾聖兪多焉.
[110] T‘ung K‘ao, ch. 221, f. 11 r^o: 晳以古本校正闕誤.
[111] See 四庫全書, ch. 99, f. 16 v^o.
[112] This appears to be still extant. See Wylie’s “Notes,” p. 91 (new edition).
[113] T‘ung K‘ao, loc. cit.: 仁廟時天下久承平人不習兵元昊既叛邊將數敗朝廷頗訪知兵者士大夫人人言兵矣故本朝注解孫武書者大抵皆其時人也.
[114] A notable person in his day. His biography is given in the San Kuo Chih, ch. 10.
[115] Ch. 100, ff. 2, 3.
[116] See p. [144].
[117] Hou Han Shu, ch. 17 ad init.
[118] San Kuo Chih, ch. 54, f. 10 v^o (commentary).
[119] Sung Shih, ch. 365 ad init.
[120] The few Europeans who have yet had an opportunity of acquainting themselves with Sun Tzŭ are not behindhand in their praise. In this connection, I may perhaps be excused for quoting from a letter from Lord Roberts, to whom the sheets of the present work were submitted previous to publication: “Many of Sun Wu’s maxims are perfectly applicable to the present day, and no. 11 on page 77 is one that the people of this country would do well to take to heart.”
[121] Ch. 140, f. 13 r^o.
[122] See [IV. § 3].
[123] The allusion may be to Mencius VI. 2. ix. 2: 戰必克.
[124] 武用兵不能必克與書所言遠甚吳起與武一體之人皆著書言兵世稱之曰孫吳然而起之言兵也輕法制草略無所統紀不若武之書詞約而義盡.
[125] The Tso Chuan.
[126] 孫子十三篇不惟武人之根本文士亦當盡心焉其詞約而縟易而深暢而可用論語易大傳之流孟荀楊著書皆不及也.
[127] 是啟人君窮兵黷武之心.
[128] Shih Chi, ch. 25, fol. 1: 兵者聖人所以討彊暴平亂世夷險阻救危殆自含血戴角之獸見犯則校而况於人懷好惡喜怒之氣喜則愛心生怒則毒螫加情性之理也...豈與世儒闇於大較不權輕重猥云德化不當用兵大至窘辱失守小乃侵犯削弱遂執不移等哉故教笞不可廢於家刑罰不可捐於國誅伐不可偃於天下用之有巧拙行之有逆順耳.
[129] The first instance of 木索 given in the P‘ei Wên Yün Fu is from Ssŭ-ma Ch‘ien’s letter to 任安 Jên An (see 文選, ch. 41, f. 9 r^o), where M. Chavannes translates it “la cangue et la chaîne.” But in the present passage it seems rather to indicate some single instrument of torture.
[130] 兵者刑也刑者政事也爲夫子之徒實仲由冉求之事也今者據案聽訟械繫罪人笞死于市者吏之所爲也驅兵數萬撅其城郭纍其妻子斬其罪人亦吏之所爲也木索兵刃無異意也笞之與斬無異刑也小而易制用力少者木索笞也大而難治用力多者兵刃斬也俱期於除去惡民安活善民.
[131] Cf. Shih Chi, ch. 47, f. 11 v^o.
[132] 季孫問于冉有曰子之戰學之乎性達之乎對曰學之季孫曰事孔子惡乎學冉有曰卽學之於孔子者大聖兼該文武並用適聞其戰法實未之詳也夫不知自何代何年何人分爲二道曰文曰武離而俱行因使縉紳之士不敢言兵甚或恥言之苟有言者世以爲麤暴異人人不比𢿙嗚呼亡失根本斯爲最甚.
[133] See Shu Ching, preface § 55.
[134] See Tso Chuan, 定公 X. 2; Shih Chi, ch. 47, f. 4 r^o.
[135] 周公相成王制禮作樂尊大儒術有淮夷叛則出征之夫子相魯公會于夾谷曰有文事者必有武備叱辱齊侯伏不敢動是二大聖人豈不知兵乎.
[136] Lun Yü, XV. 1.
[137] Tso Chuan, 哀公, XI. 7.
[138] See supra.
[139] Tso Chuan, 定公, X. 2.
[140] Ibid. XII. 5; Chia Yü, ch. 1 ad fin.
[141] I have failed to trace this utterance. See note 2 on p. [xliii].
[142] See supra.
[143] 性理彙要, loc. cit.: 昔吾夫子對衛靈公以軍旅之事未之學答孔文子以甲兵之事未之聞及觀夾谷之會則以兵加萊人而齊侯懼費人之亂則命將士以伐之而費人北嘗曰我戰則克而冉有亦曰聖人文武並用孔子豈有眞未學未聞哉特以軍旅甲兵之事非所以爲訓也.
[144] See supra.
[145] Viz., 軍禮, the other four being 吉, 凶, 賓 and 嘉 “worship, mourning, entertainment of guests and festive rites.” See Shu Ching, II. 1. iii. 8, and Chou Li, IX. fol. 49.
[146] Preface to Sun Tzŭ: 孔子曰軍旅之事未之學又曰我戰則克孔子定禮正樂兵則五禮之一不必以爲專門之學故云未學所爲聖人有所不知或行軍好謀則學之或善將將如伍子胥之用孫子又何必自學之故又曰我戰則克也.
[147] See p. [166].
[148] This is a rather obscure allusion to Tso Chuan, 襄公, XXXI. 4, where Tzŭ-ch‘an says: 子有美錦不使人學製焉 “If you have a piece of beautiful brocade, you will not employ a mere learner to make it up.”
[149] Cf. Tao Tê Ching, ch. 31: 兵者不祥之器.
[150] Sun Hsing-yen might have quoted Confucius again. See Lun Yü, XIII. 29, 30.
[151] 今世泥孔子之言以爲兵書不足觀又泥趙括徒能讀父書之言以爲成法不足用又見兵書有權謀有反間以爲非聖人之法皆不知吾儒之學者吏之治事可習而能然古人猶有學製之懼兵凶戰危將不素習未可以人命爲嘗試則十三篇之不可不觀也.
[152] Better known as Hsiang 羽 Yü [B.C. 233–202].
[153] The third among the 五伯 (or 霸) enumerated on p. [141]. For the incident referred to, see Tso Chuan, 僖公, XXII. 4.
[154] See supra, p. [xvi], note 4.
[155] Shih Chi, ch. 47, f. 7 r^o.
[156] Ibid., ch. 38, f. 8 v^o.
[157] 項梁教籍兵法籍略知其意不肯竟學卒以傾覆不知兵法之弊可勝言哉宋襄徐偃仁而敗兵者危機當用權謀孔子猶有要盟勿信微服過宋之時安得妄責孫子以言之不純哉.
[158] 其時去古未遠三代遺規往往於此書見之.
[159] 其最古者當以孫子吳子司馬法爲本大抵生聚訓練之術權謀運用之宜而已.
[160] See p. [174]. Further details on T‘ai Kung will be found in the Shih Chi, ch. 32 ad init. Besides the tradition which makes him a former minister of Chou Hsin, two other accounts of him are there given, according to which he would appear to have been first raised from a humble private station by Wên Wang.
[161] 其文義不類三代.
[162] 其言多近於正與戰國權謀頗殊.
[163] See Han Shu, 張良傳, ch. 40. The work is there called 太公兵法. Hence it has been confused with the Liu T‘ao. The T‘u Shu attributes both the Liu T‘ao and the San Lüeh to T‘ai Kung.
[164] 其文不類秦漢間書漢光武帝詔雖嘗引之安知非反摭詔中所引二語以證實其書謂之北宋以前舊本則可矣. Another work said to have been written by Huang-shih Kung, and also included in the military section of the Imperial Catalogue, is the 素書 Su Shu in 1 chüan. A short ethical treatise of Taoist savour, having no reference whatever to war, it is pronounced a forgery from the hand of 張商英 Chang Shang-ying (d. 1121), who edited it with commentary. Correct Wylie’s “Notes,” new edition, p. 90, and Courant’s “Catalogue des Livres Chinois,” no. 5056.
[165] 其書雖僞亦出於有學識謀略者之手也. We are told in the 讀書志 that the above six works, together with Sun Tzŭ, were those prescribed for military training in the 元豐 period (1078–85). See Yü Hai, ch. 140, f. 4 r^o.
[166] Also written 握機經 and 幄機經 Wu Chi Ching.
[167] 其言具有條理.
[168] “Words on Wellington,” by Sir W. Fraser.
[169] “Forty-one Years in India,” chap. 46.
[170] See Col. Henderson’s biography of Stonewall Jackson, 1902 ed., vol. II, p. 490.
[171] See Col. Henderson, op. cit. vol. I. p. 426.
[172] For a number of maxims on this head, see “Marshal Turenne” (Longmans, 1907), p. 29.
[173] “Marshal Turenne,” p. 50.
[174] “Aids to Scouting,” p. 26.
[175] See “Pensées de Napoléon I^er,” no. 47.
[176] “The Science of War,” chap. 2.
[177] “Aids to Scouting,” p. xii.
[178] “Maximes de Guerre,” no. 72.
[179] Giles’ Biographical Dictionary, no. 399.
[180] “The Science of War,” p. 333.
[181] “Stonewall Jackson,” vol. I, p. 421.
[182] See Giles’ Dictionary, no. 9817.
[183] 不入虎穴不得虎子 “Unless you enter the tiger’s lair, you cannot get hold of the tiger’s cubs.”
[184] “Aids to Scouting,” p. 2.
[185] Ch‘ien Han Shu, ch. 43, fol. 1. 顔師古 Yen Shih-ku in loc. says: 食音異其音基.
[186] “Unterricht des Königs von Preussen an die Generale seiner Armeen,” cap. 12 (edition of 1794).
[187] “Marshal Turenne,” p. 311.

Additional Transcriber’s Notes

Text notes:

The text contains Chinese characters. Character variants matching the printed text are used whenever possible rather than more common versions. Only Unicode normalized form C versions were used (see below). For best results, insure that the eReader has the latest Chinese font packages.
For the HTML version, page numbers of the original printed text are displayed within braces to the side of the text.
Footnotes have been renumbered and placed at the end of the book.
The annotation text has been indented for easier reading. The original printed text did not indent this text.
In the Introduction pages xi and xii, sentence groups in the quotation from Ssŭ-ma Ch‘ien’s biography of Sun Tzŭ separated by em-dashes are now separated into paragraphs for clarity.
In the original book, several Chinese text lines were placed in the top quarter of a page and the translation in the bottom three quarters of the page. This transcription places each Chinese text line above its corresponding translation.
Missing quotation marks, capitalization, punctuation, and spaces were silently corrected.
Except as mentioned above and in the Change List that follows, every effort has been made to replicate this text as faithfully as possible, including non-standard punctuation, inconsistently hyphenated words, etc. The corrigenda has already been incorporated into the text.
New original cover art included with this eBook is granted to the public domain.

Change List (page numbers from original printed book):

Page [x]
befel changed to
befell
Page [xx]
then changed to
them
Page [xxv]
abready changed to
already
Page [xxxi]
surrived changed to
survived
Page [xlviii] footnote #1
have changed to
I have
Page [xlviii]
combine two instances of footnote #4
Page [17]
according to Ssŭ-ma Fa, changed to
according to the Ssŭ-ma Fa,
Page 29 and 62
Using variant 獲 (U+7372) in place of 𫉬 (U+2B26C) since the latter code point is not handled by some TTS systems.
Page [39]
meaniug changed to
meaning
Page [44]
succeding changed to
succeeding
Page [70]
exclained changed to
exclaimed
Page [125]
σωθεῖτε changed to
σωθείητε
Page [136]
Chang Yü adopts its, changed to
Chang Yü adopts it,
Page [152]
the material for changed to
The material for
Page [154] and [156]
Using variant 荒 (U+798F) in place of 𮎰 (U+2E3B0, ⿱艹㠩) since the latter code point is rare in fonts.
Page [168]
accompained changed to
accompanied
Page [171]
leaders of mercenary troops.”. changed to
leaders of mercenary troops.”
Several pages
Using variant 隙 (U+9699) in place of 𨻶 (U+28EF6) since the latter code point is not handled by some TTS systems.

Character changes to Unicode normalized form C versions:

節 (U+FA56) → 節 (U+7BC0)
神 (U+FA19) → 神 (U+795E)
既 (U+FA42) → 既 (U+65E2)
祥 (U+FA1A) → 祥 (U+7965)
福 (U+FA1B) → 福 (U+798F)
館 (U+FA2C) → 館 (U+9928)
祖 (U+FA50) → 祖 (U+7956)