[Sun Tzŭ means the Shang dynasty, founded in 1766 B.C. Its name was
changed to Yin by P’an Keng in 1401.
was due to I Chih
[Better known as I Yin, the famous general and statesman who took part
in Ch’eng T’ang’s campaign against Chieh Kuei.]
who had served under the Hsia. Likewise, the rise of the Chou dynasty
was due to Lü Ya
[Lu Shang rose to high office under the tyrant Chou Hsin, whom he
afterwards helped to overthrow. Popularly known as T’ai Kung, a title
bestowed on him by Wen Wang, he is said to have composed a treatise on
war, erroneously identified with the _Liu T’ao_.]
who had served under the Yin.
[There is less precision in the Chinese than I have thought it well to
introduce into my translation, and the commentaries on the passage are
by no means explicit. But, having regard to the context, we can hardly
doubt that Sun Tzŭ is holding up I Chih and Lu Ya as illustrious
examples of the converted spy, or something closely analogous. His
suggestion is, that the Hsia and Yin dynasties were upset owing to the
intimate knowledge of their weaknesses and shortcoming which these
former ministers were able to impart to the other side. Mei Yao-ch’en
appears to resent any such aspersion on these historic names: "I Yin
and Lu Ya," he says, "were not rebels against the Government. Hsia
could not employ the former, hence Yin employed him. Yin could not
employ the latter, hence Hou employed him. Their great achievements
were all for the good of the people." Ho Shih is also indignant: "How
should two divinely inspired men such as I and Lu have acted as common
spies? Sun Tzŭ’s mention of them simply means that the proper use of
the five classes of spies is a matter which requires men of the highest
mental caliber like I and Lu, whose wisdom and capacity qualified them
for the task. The above words only emphasize this point." Ho Shih
believes then that the two heroes are mentioned on account of their
supposed skill in the use of spies. But this is very weak.]