belong to the early part of the fifth century. Seeing that

he is actually engaged in an attempt to disprove the existence of Sun Wu himself, we may be sure that he would not have hesitated to assign the work to a later date had he not honestly believed the contrary. And it is precisely on such a point that the judgment of an educated Chinaman will carry most weight. Other internal evidence is not far to seek. Thus, in XIII. § 1, there is an unmistakable allusion to the ancient system of land- tenure which had abready passed away by the time 01 Mencius, who was anxious to see it revived in a modified form. 1 The only warfare Sun Tzi’i knows is that carried on between the various feudal princes (%€§), in which armoured chariots play a large part. Their use seems to have entirely died out before the end of the Chou dynasty. He speaks as a man of Wu, a state which ceased to exist as early as 47 3 B. C. On this I shall touch presently.

But once refer the work to the 5th century or earlier, and the chances of its being other than a éomifia’e pro— duction are sensibly diminished. The great age of forgeries did not come until long after. That it should have been forged in the period immediately following 47 3 is parti- cularly unlikely, for no one, as a rule, hastens to identify himself with a lost cause. As for Yeh Shui-hsin’s theory, that the author was a literary recluse, 2 that seems to me quite untenable. If one thing is more apparent than an- other after reading the maxims of Sun Tzi’i, it is that their essence has been distilled from a large store of personal observation and experience. They reflect the mind not only of a born strategist, gifted with a rare faculty of gene- ralisation, but also of a practical soldier closely acquainted

with the military conditions of his time. To say nothing