hat period he really belonged to.

He also says: --

The works of Sun Wu and Wu Ch`i may be of genuine
antiquity.

It is noticeable that both Yeh Shui-hsin and Ch`en Chen-sun,
while rejecting the personality of Sun Wu as he figures in Ssu-ma
Ch`ien's history, are inclined to accept the date traditionally
assigned to the work which passes under his name. The author of
the HSU LU fails to appreciate this distinction, and consequently
his bitter attack on Ch`en Chen-sun really misses its mark. He
makes one of two points, however, which certainly tell in favor
of the high antiquity of our "13 chapters." "Sun Tzu," he says,
"must have lived in the age of Ching Wang [519-476], because he
is frequently plagiarized in subsequent works of the Chou, Ch`in
and Han dynasties." The two most shameless offenders in this
respect are Wu Ch`i and Huai-nan Tzu, both of them important
historical personages in their day. The former lived only a
century after the alleged date of Sun Tzu, and his death is known
to have taken place in 381 B.C. It was to him, according to Liu
Hsiang, that Tseng Shen delivered the TSO CHUAN, which had been
entrusted to him by its author. [29] Now the fact that
quotations from the ART OF WAR, acknowledged or otherwise, are to
be found in so many authors of different epochs, establishes a
very strong anterior to them all, -- in other words, that Sun
Tzu's treatise was already in existence towards the end of the
5th century B.C. Further proof of Sun Tzu's antiquity is
furnished by the archaic or wholly obsolete meanings attaching to
a number of the words he uses. A list of these, which might
perhaps be extended, is given in the HSU LU; and though some of
the interpretations are doubtful, the main argument is hardly
affected thereby. Again, it must not be forgotten that Yeh Shui-
hsin, a scholar and critic of the first rank, deliberately
pronounces the style of the 13 chapters to 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. ss. 1, there is an unmistakable
allusion to the ancient system of land-tenure whic