Zhōuyì kuīyú 周易窺餘
Glimpsing the Leftover of the Zhōuyì
by 鄭剛中 Zhèng Gāngzhōng (zì Hēngzhòng 亨仲, 1088–1154, of Jīnhuá 金華)
About the work
A fifteen-juan Yì commentary by 鄭剛中 Zhèng Gāngzhōng — Southern-Sòng Lǐbù shìláng 禮部侍郎 (“Vice Minister of Rites”) and Chuān-Shǎn xuānfǔ fùshǐ 川陝宣撫副使 (“Vice Pacification Commissioner of Sìchuān-Shaanxi”) — composed during the years of his repeated demotion-and-exile (Guìyáng → Háozhōu → Fùzhōu → Fēngzhōu) under 秦檜 Qín Huì’s later anti-rivals purges, ultimately dying in exile in Fēngzhōu (modern Guǎngdōng) in 1154. The title “Glimpsing the Leftover” is programmatic, articulated in Zhèng’s self-preface: “Yīchuān Yìzhuàn (KR1a0016) and Hànshàng Yìzhuàn (KR1a0024), these two books somewhat reconciled the imagery and meaning. But the Yì Way is broad-and-great; what can be glimpsed is the leftover. So I, in turn, glimpse.” The work is conceived as a supplement gleaning the residue not absorbed by 程頤 Chéng Yí’s yìlǐ and 朱震 Zhū Zhèn’s xiàngshù.
The textually distinctive feature is the absence of Qián and Kūn hexagrams and of Xìcí and following — Zhèng Gāngzhōng deliberately omits them, on the principle that “Qián and Kūn” are the Yì’s deepest heart and can only be reached after the other sixty-two hexagrams have been mastered. 陳振孫 Chén Zhènsūn’s Shūlù jiětí misread this as political “avoidance” (e.g., on the rule that Qián signifies the imperial position and could be politically sensitive); Zhèng’s preface refutes the Chén reading: “Starting from Tún and Méng, through the imagery I find the yáo; through the yáo I recognize the guà; if even one in ten thousand glimpses the resemblance, then by following the stream and seeking the source, the subtlety of Qián and Kūn can be probed.”
Methodologically, the work is a synthetic eclectic xiàngshù-cum-yìlǐ reading. Zhèng Gāngzhōng draws systematically on:
- Hàn xiàngshù sources — 荀爽 Xún Shuǎng, 虞翻 Yú Fān, 干寶 Gān Bǎo, 蜀才 Shǔcái, the Jiǔjiā Yì 九家易 (all preserved through 李鼎祚 Lǐ Dǐngzuò’s Zhōuyì jíjiě 周易集解 (KR1a0008)).
- His near-contemporary 朱震 Zhū Zhèn’s Hànshàng Yìzhuàn (KR1a0024) — which was Zhèng’s most immediate methodological model.
- The 王弼 Wáng Bì–孔穎達 Kǒng Yǐngdá yìlǐ (Zhōuyì zhù (KR1a0006), Zhōuyì zhèngyì (KR1a0007)) — but read against, not within, the imperial-examination orthodoxy Wáng-Kǒng had established.
Zhèng’s commentary is therefore a deliberate breaking-out of the post-Táng yìlǐ monopoly toward a broader hermeneutic. The Sìkù tiyao singles out specific Zhèng readings as substantively original: at Sòng 訟 9-2, his independent punctuation against the standard parsing; at Bǐ 比 6-1, his explanation of the canonical phrase zhōng lái yǒu tā jí 終來有它吉 (which 朱熹 Zhū Xī had given up as “cannot be understood”) in terms of the cumulative trust-building of bǐ-relations; at Tài 9-2 and the Dàxiàng of Dàyǒu, his political-ethical readings as “particularly correct, lofty, lucid, applicable to government.”
The Sìkù editors’ final note is biographically tinged: Zhèng Gāngzhōng’s initial career advancement came through Qín Huì’s faction, and he supported the peace settlement and the territorial cession to the Jīn in the early 1140s — a position widely seen as morally compromised by later Sòng-and-Yuán historiography. His later demotion-and-exile was the work of Qín Huì’s own turning against him in 1147, on the charge of having become too independent. So Zhèng’s political record is mixed; “his exposition of the canon does, however, have understanding and is not to be discarded” — the editors decline to let political adjudication govern the canon-decision. Compare the parallel handling of 耿南仲 Gěng Nánzhòng (KR1a0020).
A textual disambiguation: 王應麟 Wáng Yīnglín’s Kùnxué jìwén records a 鄭剛中 (Zhèng Gāngzhōng) with Zhōulǐ jiěyì 周禮解義. But Wáng Yǔyì’s 王與義 Zhōulǐ dìngyì 周禮訂義 lists at its head a 三山鄭鍔 (Zhèng È of Sānshān) zì 剛中, who in the Chúnxī era presented a Zhōulǐ quánjiě 周禮全解 to the throne — a different person whose given name happens to coincide with our author’s zì. The two should not be conflated.
The work was lost between Sòng and Míng (葉盛 Yè Shèng’s Lùzhútáng shūmù 菉竹堂書目 still listed it; the Wényuāngé shūmù 文淵閣書目 also; thereafter no transmission record), and recovered for the Sìkù from the Yǒnglè dàdiǎn. The seven hexagrams missing (Qián, Kūn, plus the Xìcí and following) in the original are supplemented with canonical text only; isolated glosses recovered from other works are also incorporated.
Composition window 1140–1154 reflects Zhèng’s late-career exile years.
Tiyao
We respectfully submit that Zhōuyì kuīyú in fifteen juan was composed by 鄭剛中 Zhèng Gāngzhōng of the Sòng. Gāngzhōng, zì Hēngzhòng, was a man of Jīnhuá. Jìnshì of Shàoxīng 2 [1132]; rose in office to Lǐbù shìláng; was sent out as Chuān-Shǎn xuānfǔ fùshǐ; banished to Guìyángjūn; further demoted to Háozhōu tuánliàn fùshǐ with assignment to Fùzhōu; transferred again to Fēngzhōu, where he died. After death his original rank was restored; he was canonized Zhōngmǐn 忠愍. His record stands in his own Sòngshǐ biography.
王應麟 Wáng Yīnglín’s Kùnxué jìwén says that Zhèng Gāngzhōng has a Zhōulǐ jiěyì. But examining Wáng Yǔyì’s Zhōulǐ dìngyì: at its head, listing the various clans, there is a “Sānshān Zhèng È, zì Gāngzhōng” who in the Chúnxī era presented to the throne Zhōulǐ quánjiě. That is in fact a separate man whose zì happens to coincide with the name [Gāngzhōng] of the present author; some have confused them, but they are not the same.
Gāngzhōng’s Yì jiě in fifteen juan appears in 陳振孫 Chén Zhènsūn’s Shūlù jiětí and the Sòngshǐ Yìwén zhì with juan-counts in agreement. Only the Qián and Kūn hexagrams and the Xìcí and following are originally lacking — not commented. Chén Zhènsūn supposes that perhaps at the Qián-Kūn nexus there was something he was avoiding [politically]; but his self-preface says: “Starting from Tún and Méng, through the imagery I find the yáo; through the yáo I recognize the guà; if even one in ten thousand glimpses the resemblance, then by following the stream and seeking the source, the subtlety of Qián and Kūn can be probed.” So Chén Zhènsūn’s reading is wrong.
The self-preface says further: “Yīchuān Yìzhuàn and Hànshàng Yìzhuàn, these two books, somewhat reconciled the imagery and meaning. But the Yì Way is broad-and-great; what can be glimpsed is the leftover. So I, in turn, glimpse.” The name “Glimpsing the Leftover” comes from this.
In the early Míng, the Wényuāngé shūmù and Yè Shèng’s Lùzhútáng shūmù still register it; afterwards transmission ceased. 朱彝尊 Zhū Yízūn’s Jīngyì kǎo also says “not seen.” Only the Yǒnglè dàdiǎn still preserves the text. We have now selected and gathered, sequenced according to the canonical text. The seven hexagrams that the original lacks, we have for now recorded only the canonical text; glosses by him preserved separately in other books we have also collected and inserted to supplement. Following the original schema, we fix it again at fifteen juan.
Since the Táng made 王弼 Wáng Bì’s commentary the Zhèngyì, learners have spoken exclusively of mínglǐ 名理. Only 李鼎祚 Lǐ Dǐngzuò’s Jíjiě did not take Bì’s reading as primary, broadly searching to “prune Fǔsì’s wild words and supplement Kāngchéng’s omitted images” — but the canonical-classics scholars of the day could not entirely follow his learning. The Sòng Confucians like 胡瑗 Hú Yuán and Master Chéng — their yìlǐ talk is refined and pure, beyond what the Jìn-Táng Confucians could match — yet on the xiàng there is also much omission. Gāngzhōng’s book begins to take in Hàn Yì-learning together: 荀爽 Xún Shuǎng, 虞翻 Yú Fān, 干寶 Gān Bǎo, 蜀才 Shǔcái, the Jiǔjiā Yì, and his contemporary 朱震 Zhū Zhèn’s reading — all are cross-checked, not centred on a single house. His readings here and there differ from the older Confucians but often hit the principle exactly. As, for instance: at Sòng 9-2 he takes “bù kè sòng guī” 不克訟歸 as a phrase, and “ér bū qí yì rén sān bǎi hù” 而逋其邑人三百户 as a phrase — taking it that the sage’s reason for making him “let escape the men of his three-hundred-house town” is the fear that he might rely on the multitude and the rugged ground to bring about chaos: this for the carefulness of the upper-and-lower distinction. At Bǐ 6-1 “zhōng lái yǒu tā jí” — Master Zhū says he cannot understand it; Gāngzhōng holds: “the way of bǐ-relations takes faith as primary; the long accumulated; those previously not in bǐ now come from outside, so ‘there are others, fortunate.‘” — These all bring out fresh meaning, not constrained by received accounts. As to his glosses on Tài 9-2 and the Dàxiàng of Dàyǒu, the discussion is particularly correct and lofty, exact and incisive, applicable to the body of government.
Although his initial entry to office through Qín Huì, his support of the peace settlement and abandonment of old territory, do not entirely accord with public judgment — his exposition of the canonical meaning has substantive understanding, and is to be reckoned not unworthy of preservation by the Yì-talker.
Respectfully revised and submitted, ninth month of the forty-sixth year of Qiánlóng [1781].
General Compilers: 紀昀 Jǐ Yún, 陸錫熊 Lù Xīxióng, 孫士毅 Sūn Shìyì. General Reviser: 陸費墀 Lù Fèichí.
Abstract
鄭剛中 Zhèng Gāngzhōng (1088–1154), of Jīnhuá 金華 in Wùzhōu 婺州 (modern Zhèjiāng), is a complex Southern-Sòng official-scholar whose career and writings sit awkwardly with respect to subsequent Confucian moral-historiography. Jìnshì of 1132 (Shàoxīng 2). Initially advanced through alignment with 秦檜 Qín Huì’s chancellor faction; held Lǐbù shìláng and was sent as Chuān-Shǎn xuānfǔ fùshǐ (in modern Sìchuān-Shaanxi) supervising the western frontier under the post-1142 peace settlement. The cession of the territory north of the Wèi River to the Jīn under that settlement was managed in part by him — making him, in subsequent moralist-historiographic memory, complicit with the cession-and-appeasement programme.
In 1147 (Shàoxīng 17) Qín Huì turned against him on the charge of independent action; he was banished to Guìyángjūn 桂陽軍 in modern Húnán, then progressively further demoted and removed (Háozhōu, Fùzhōu, finally Fēngzhōu in modern Guǎngdōng), where he died in 1154 — the same year Qín Huì died. Posthumously rehabilitated and canonized Zhōngmǐn 忠愍 (“Loyal-and-Mournful”). The Sòngshǐ (juan 370) gives him a biography. The seven-year exile period (1147–1154) is the conventional dating for the bulk of his Yì-scholarship.
The Zhōuyì kuīyú is the principal Sòng-period attempt at a synthetic xiàngshù-and-yìlǐ reading, and the most ambitious post-Hànshàng-Yìzhuàn use of the 李鼎祚 Lǐ Dǐngzuò Jíjiě preservation of Hàn xiàngshù fragments. The deliberate omission of Qián and Kūn — preserved in Zhèng’s preface as a programmatic decision rather than as political prudence — is methodologically distinctive and has no parallel in the Sòng Yì corpus.
Zhèng’s intellectual-political situation — Qín Huì’s faction member, then Qín Huì’s victim — is reflected in the work’s reception. 朱熹 Zhū Xī’s Yǔlèi engages the work, sometimes positively (the Bǐ 6-1 reading); the Yuán-Míng xiàngshù tradition (胡一桂 Hú Yīguì, 吳澄 Wú Chéng) cites it. The Sìkù tiyao’s pluralist insistence on separating textual judgment from political adjudication is consistent with the editorial line on 耿南仲 Gěng Nánzhòng (KR1a0020) and on 蘇軾 Sū Shì (KR1a0015).
The textual problem of seven missing hexagrams plus Xìcí and following — programmatically authorial in the case of Qián and Kūn, possibly textual in the case of the Xìcí (whether Zhèng wrote on it and the text was lost, or never wrote on it) — is unresolvable on present evidence; the Sìkù registers the form as received.
Translations and research
No European-language translation. Specialist literature.
- Hoyt Cleveland Tillman, Confucian Discourse and Chu Hsi’s Ascendancy (Univ. of Hawaii, 1992) — context for the post-1142 Southern-Sòng intellectual scene.
- Charles Hartman, Han Yu and the T’ang Search for Unity (Princeton, 1986) — methodological background.
- Modern punctuated reissues on the WYG / Sìkù base.
- Liú Yùjiàn 劉玉建 / Lín Zhōngjūn 林忠軍, articles on Zhèng Gāngzhōng in Zhōuyì yánjiū.
Other points of interest
The Sìkù tiyao’s separation of biographical-political adjudication from textual evaluation is one of the most consistent features of the Yì-section editorial line: 蘇軾 Sū Shì (KR1a0015), 耿南仲 Gěng Nánzhòng (KR1a0020), and Zhèng Gāngzhōng all receive this same treatment — a careful textual evaluation, with biographical-political reservations registered but not allowed to govern the canon-decision. The pattern is not uniform across the Sìkù; the Yì section’s particular pluralism reflects the editors’ deference to the canonical multiplicity of Yì readings.
The methodological synthesis of Hàn xiàngshù preservation (via Lǐ Dǐngzuò) with Sòng yìlǐ and contemporary Zhū Zhèn — the threefold base Zhèng adopts — is the kind of program that the Yuán-Míng Sì shū wǔ jīng dà quán tradition would later flatten back into Chéng-Zhū orthodoxy. Zhōuyì kuīyú is therefore one of the relatively few Sòng Yì commentaries that preserves a path-not-taken of the Sòng Yì-revival.