Sun Tzǔ has exercised a potent fascination over the minds of some of China’s greatest men. Among the famous generals who are known to have studied his pages with enthusiasm may be mentioned 韓信 Han Hsin ( d. 196 BC ), 116 馮異 Fêng I ( d. 34 AD ), 117 呂蒙 Lü Mêng ( d. 219), 118 and 岳飛 Yo Fei (1103–1141). 119 The opinion of Tsʽao Kung , who disputes with Han Hsin the highest place in Chinese military annals, has already been recorded. 120 Still more remarkable, in one way, is the testimony of purely literary men, such as 蘇洵 Su Hsün (the father of Su Tung-pʽo ), who wrote several essays on military topics, all of which owe their chief inspiration to Sun Tzǔ . The following short passage by him is preserved in the Yu Hai : 121 —
Sun Wu’s saying, that in war one cannot make certain of conquering, 122 is very different indeed from what other books tell us. 123 Wu Chʽi was a man of the same stamp as Sun Wu : they both wrote books on war, and they are linked together in popular speech as “ Sun and Wu .” But Wu Chʽi’s remarks on war are less weighty, his rules are rougher and more crudely stated, and there is not the same unity of plan as in Sun Tzǔ’s work, where the style is terse, but the meaning fully brought out. 124
The 性理彙要 , ch. 17, contains the following extract from the 藝圃折衷 Impartial Judgments in the Garden of Literature by 鄭厚 Chêng Hou :—
Sun Tzǔ’s 13 chapters are not only the staple and base of all military men’s training, but also compel the most careful attention of scholars and men of letters. His sayings are terse yet elegant, simple yet profound, perspicuous and eminently practical. Such works as the Lun Yü , the I Ching and the great Commentary, 125 as well as the writings of Mencius, Hsün Kʽuang and Yang Chu , all fall below the level of Sun Tzǔ . 126
Chu Hsi , commenting on this, fully admits the first part of the criticism, although he dislikes the audacious comparison with the venerated classical works. Language of this sort, he says, “encourages a ruler’s bent towards unrelenting warfare and reckless militarism.” 127