Wu, eith_er as__a_gene1;al onas 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 5/2272 C52", but even show themselves frankly sceptical 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 disquisition by % 7k1l‘1‘ Yeh Shui—hsin: 1 —

\

It is stated in Ss'fi—ma Ch‘ien’s history that Sim Wu was a native of the Ch‘i State, and employed by Wu ; and that in the 'gn of H0 Lu he crushed‘ Ch‘u, entered Ying, and was a great general. But in Tso’s Commentary no Sun Wu appears at all. tary need not contain absolutely everything that other histories contain. But Tso has not omitted to mention vulgar plebeians and hireling ruf— fians such as Ying K‘ao—shu, ‘-‘ Ts‘ao Kuei, 3 Chu Chih-wu‘ and Chuan She-Chu. 5 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. 5 Is it credible that Sun Wu alone should have been passed over?7

In point of literary style, Sun Tz‘u’s work belongs to the same school

as Kucm Tzfi,8 the £222 T ‘ao,9 and the Yz‘ie/z Yiz, 1° and may have