I was browsing around Project Gutenberg today and came across a 1910 translation of The Art of War by Sun Tzu, translated by Lionel Giles. It turned out to be the same translation I was first exposed to.
I remember my stepsister buying a very old copy for herself at a used book store in Key West. I’d heard of the book (who hasn’t?), but this was the first time I had actually had my hands on a copy. I read the first two pages in the parking lot and subsequently resigned myself to read as much as possible on the ride home, even if it made me motion sick.
This particular translation begins with the legend of Sun Tzu’s rise to the rank of General and follows with a lengthy, some-times-interesting/some-times-boring discussion of the main text’s history. The legend of Sun Tzu’s rise, which involves beheading the king’s two favorite concubines (much to the dismay of the king), stuck with me for years. At first the story seems simple, but there are many subtle lessons in it that are likely to be missed on the first reading. It was worth the motion sickness.
Though I was unable to make it to the actual Art of War text during our drive back to Marathon, the desire to read the book stayed with me for several years until I finally bought and read The Art of War: Complete Text and Commentaries
, translated by Thomas Cleary, which includes The Art of War as well as several related texts. When I finished the book, I immediately flipped back to the beginning and began reading it again. It is that good.
I am very happy to have rediscovered the Lionel Giles translation. I spent some time today reading the introduction once again, and came across a passage in critique of Confucianism that I thought was especially relevant to the War on Terror and it’s prominence in the debates for next year’s elections:
“Military weapons are the means used by the Sage to punish violence and cruelty, to give peace to troublous times, to remove difficulties and dangers, and to succor those who are in peril. Every animal with blood in its veins and horns on its head will fight when it is attacked. How much more so will man, who carries in his breast the faculties of love and hatred, joy and anger! When he is pleased, a feeling of affection springs up within him; when angry, his poisoned sting is brought into play. That is the natural law which governs his being…. What then shall be said of those scholars of our time, blind to all great issues, and without any appreciation of relative values, who can only bark out their stale formulas about ‘virtue’ and ‘civilization,’ condemning the use of military weapons? They will surely bring our country to impotence and dishonor and the loss of her rightful heritage; or, at the very least, they will bring about invasion and rebellion, sacrifice of territory and general enfeeblement. Yet they obstinately refuse to modify the position they have taken up. The truth is that, just as in the family the teacher must not spare the rod, and punishments cannot be dispensed with in the State, so military chastisement can never be allowed to fall into abeyance in the Empire. All one can say is that this power will be exercised wisely by some, foolishly by others, and that among those who bear arms some will be loyal and others rebellious.” –Ssu-ma Ch`ien, (91 B.C.E.)
