Wei Liaozi: Difference between revisions

The '''''Wei Liaozi''''' ({{zh-tsp|t=尉繚子|s=尉缭子|p=Wèi Liáozi}}) is a text on military strategy, one of the [[Seven Military Classics]] of ancient [[China]].<ref name='Sawyer'>{{cite book | last = Sawyer | first = Ralph D. | authorlink = |author2=Mei Mei-chün Sawyer | title = The Seven Military Classics of Ancient China | publisher = Westview Press | year = 1993 | location = | pages = | url = http://books.google.com/books?id=N3z6OwIIf-IC | doi = | id = | isbn = 0-8133-1228-0 }}</ref> It was written during the [[Warring States period]] (403-221 BC).<ref name='Ven'>{{cite book | last = Van de Ven | first = Hans J. | authorlink = | title = Warfare in Chinese History | publisher = BRILL | year = 2000 | location = | pages = 7 | url = http://books.google.com/books?id=IXKkCXDvYFYC | doi = | id = | isbn = 90-04-11774-1 }}</ref>

The work is purportedly named after Wei Liao,<ref>"Zi" (子; "Tzu" in [[Wade-Giles]] transliteration) was used as a suffix for the family name of a respectable man in ancient Chinese culture. It is a rough equivalent to "Sir" and is commonly translated into English as "Master".</ref> who is said to have either been a student of [[Lord Shang]] or an important advisor during the [[Qin Dynasty]]. However, there is little evidence to support either view. The only textual reference to Wei Liao outside of the ''Wei Liaozi'' is in the ''[[Records of the Grand Historian]] (Shiji)'', where he is cast as an advisor to [[Qin Shi Huang]], the youthful king of the state of [[Qin (state)|Qin]]. Since the Wei Liaozi contains almost no actual strategy, it is thought that Wei Liao was a [[:wikt:theoretician|theoretician]]. Questions of authorship are further clouded by the fact that two different works of the same name appear to have been known during the [[Han Dynastydynasty]]. The work assumed its present form around the end of the fourth century BC. A new version of the ''Wei Liaozi'' was discovered in 1972 at a Han Dynasty tomb in [[Linyi]]. It is more [[philosophy|philosophical]] in tone than the received text, but differs significantly in only a few places.<ref>Sawyer (1993) pp. 229–232</ref>