triumphs and disasters of the thousand years which had

elapsed since Sun Wu’s death would, upon examination, be found to uphold and corroborate, in every particular, the maxims contained in his book. 1 Tu Mu’s somewhat spiteful charge against Ts‘ao Kung has already been con- sidered elsewhere.

6. m [15% Ch’én Hao appears to have been a contemp- orary of Tu Mu. Ch‘ao Kung-wu says that he was im- pelled to write a new commentary on Sun Tzfi because Ts‘ao Kung’s on the one hand was too obscure and subtle, and that of Tu Mu on the other too long—winded and diffuse. 2 Ouvyang Hsiu, writing in the middle of the I 1th century, calls Ts‘ao Kung, Tu Mu and Ch‘en Hao the three chief commentators on Sun Tzfi (3 £56), and observes that Ch‘en Hao is continually attacking Tu Mu’s short- comings. His commentary, though not lacking in merit, must rank below those of his predecessors.

7. g Chia Lin is known to have lived under the T‘ang dynasty, for his commentary on Sun Tzfi is men- tioned in the and was afterwards republished by fig Chi Hsieh of the same dynasty together with those of Méng Shih and Tu Yu.3 It is of somewhat scanty texture, and in point of quality, too, perhaps the least valuable of the eleven.

8- W % E: Mei Yao-ch‘én (1002—1060), commonly known by his “style” as Mei Sheng-yii, Was, like Tu Mu, a poet of distinction. His commentary was pub- lished with a laudatory preface by the great Ou-yang Hsiu, from which we may cull the following: —

Later scholars have misread Sun thi, distorting his words and trying to make them square with their own one-sided views. Thus, though