Bǐngzǐ Xué Yì biān 丙子學易編
The Bǐng-zǐ-Year Yì-Studies Compilation
by 李心傳 Lǐ Xīnchuán (撰), zì Wēizhī 微之, hào Xiùyán 秀巖, 1167–1244, of Lóngzhōu 隆州 in Sìchuān — author of the Jiànyán yǐlái xìnián yàolù 建炎以來繫年要錄 and Jiànyán yǐlái cháoyě zájì 建炎以來朝野雜記, two of the most important Sòng-period chronicles
About the work
A one-juan extract of an originally fifteen-juan compilation of selected Yì-glosses from the canonical Sòng Yì-tradition, by the great Southern-Sòng historian Lǐ Xīnchuán. The work was composed in 280 days of dedicated work during the bǐngzǐ year of Jiādìng 9 (1216) — the title Bǐngzǐ records the cyclical year. Lǐ Xīnchuán was, by his own account, a late-coming Yì student: “I began at 40-plus when friends advised me to read the Yì*; I was glad and took to it, but for a whole day I sat blank like a one-eyed man’s gaze, not knowing what kind of book the* Yì is.”
The auto-preface (dated Jiādìng 9 / bǐngzǐ spring third month jiǎshēn day, 1216) traces the path of his Yì-study: ten years after the first failed attempt, “I first sought it in 王弼 Wáng Bì’s book — much was beyond me; next I examined Zhāngzǐ’s (張載 Zhāng Zài’s) book — and could roughly glimpse the outline; finally I read Chéngzǐ’s (程頤 Chéng Yí’s) book — and it was as clear as a beacon dispelling the fog. Chéngzǐ’s book is the convergence of meaning-and-principle; yet his words are still as if not specifically arising from the line-drawing-and-strokes — therefore I cross-checked with my late father’s Běn zhuàn 本傳 and with Master Huìān’s (朱熹 Zhū Xī’s) Běnyì, and after that the sage’s intent in drawing-the-hexagrams and naming-the-lines had no remaining mystery.”
The compositional structure: passage-by-passage extraction from five (or possibly six, see below) masters’ Yì glosses, with the father’s Yì běn zhuàn used as cross-reference, and Lǐ Xīnchuán’s own remarks “written down day-by-day to guard against forgetting; here-and-there my own humble views capable of extending the various masters’ expositions are also appended.”
The auto-preface lists four primary masters (Wáng Bì, Zhāng Zài, Chéng Yí, Zhū Xī) plus secondary draws on 周敦頤 Zhōu Dūnyí (Liánxī), 邵雍 Shào Yōng, and the father’s Běn zhuàn. But 俞琰 Yú Yǎn’s Yuán-period colophon — the colophon at the back of the surviving Yú-Yǎn-extract Sìkù base-text — lists five primary masters: Wáng Bì, Zhāng Zài, Chéng Yí, 郭雍 Guō Yōng (Zǐhé 子和), and Zhū Xī, without Zhōu Dūnyí or Shào Yōng. The Sìkù editors flag the discrepancy: “[Lǐ Xīnchuán’s] original is not extant; which is correct is unclear. Examining: Zhōuzǐ’s Tōng shū and Shàozǐ’s Huángjí jīngshì — although both expound Yì*-principle — actually deliver their teachings outside the* Yì and are not very usable as canonical glosses; only Guō Yōng [in his Chuánjiā Yì shuō (KR1a0033)] does passage-by-passage exposition with a complete book. Perhaps Lǐ Xīnchuán’s preface had a copyist’s error.” The Sìkù editors lean toward Yú Yǎn’s listing being correct.
The transmission state: the original 15 juan was cut to woodblocks, together with Lǐ Xīnchuán’s Sòng Shī xùn 誦詩訓, by 高斯得 Gāo Sīdé at Tóngjiāng 桐江. Both works were later “scattered and dispersed.” The present base-text is 俞琰 Yú Yǎn’s hand-copy, made in his old age from a copy he had borrowed from the Wéndéfāng 聞德坊 Zhōu-family bookshop’s wares. Yú Yǎn’s colophon explains: “The weather was cold and the days short; my old eyes were bleary; in two days I copied what I considered worth keeping” — and notes that his extract preserves “not even one-tenth” of the original. But Yú Yǎn was a major Yì scholar in his own right (author of Dú Yì jǔ yào, Zhōuyì jí shuō etc.), so the English flowers (yīnghuá 英華) he selected are the substantive heart of the work — “the general intent is still discernible.”
Reception: Gāo Sīdé’s colophon to the Bǐngzǐ Xué Yì biān and Sòng Shī xùn (preserved in his Chǐtáng cúngǎo 恥堂存稿) records the contemporary verdict: “The Master Xiùyán is a great ru of recent times. The world only sees that his treatises are stored in the Míngtáng stone-room and gold-cabinet jade-tablets, and judges him as a fine historian — they do not know that the Master, from his middle years onward, exhausted the deep truths of the Way; the depths of his canonical-art are not what recent-period scholar-officials can attain. Although these are a disciple’s words honoring his teacher, they are not exaggeration.”
The composition window 1216–1216 reflects the firm fixing of the work to a single year of intensive labor.
Tiyao
We respectfully submit that Bǐngzǐ Xué Yì biān in one juan was composed by Lǐ Xīnchuán of the Sòng. [Lǐ] Xīnchuán, zì Wēizhī, hào Xiùyán, a man of Lóngzhōu. In Bǎoqìng 2 [1226] he was summoned-from-commoner-status (bùyī zhào 布衣召) to be supplemented as Cóngzhèng láng, detached to fill Mìgé jiàokān; rose in office to Gōngbù shìláng and concurrently Mìshūjiān. His career-record is given in his Sòngshǐ biography in the Rúlín zhuàn.
[Lǐ] Xīnchuán was deeply versed in historical study; he authored Jiànyán yǐlái xìnián yàolù and Jiànyán yǐlái cháoyě zájì, two books much-honored by historians. But canonical scholarship he also rather pursued at heart. Gāo Sīdé’s Chǐtáng cúngǎo has a colophon to the Xué Yì biān and Sòng Shī xùn, saying: “Master Xiùyán is a great ru of recent times. The world only sees that his treatises are stored in the Míngtáng stone-room and gold-cabinet jade-tablets, judging him a fine historian — they do not know that the Master, from middle years onward, exhausted the deep truths of the Way; the depths of his canonical-art are not what recent-period scholar-officials attain.” Although these are a disciple’s words of teacher-honor, they are not over-praise.
This book — in Jiādìng 9 [1216] [Lǐ Xīnchuán] exhausted 280 days’ labor on it, arranging-and-compiling and finishing the task; with the year being bǐngzǐ, hence took bǐngzǐ as the title. He drew only on the discussions of five masters — Wáng Bì, Zhāngzǐ [Zhāng Zài], Chéngzǐ, Guō Yōng, and Zhūzǐ — and used his father [Lǐ] Shùnchén’s Yì běn zhuàn discussions to verify them; here-and-there appending his own intent. The original book was fifteen juan; Gāo Sīdé once cut it together with the Sòng Shī xùn at Tóngjiāng — today already scattered.
This base-copy is the early-Yuán hand-copy made by Yú Yǎn. At its end is Yú’s colophon: “This book I borrowed from what the Wéndéfāng Zhōu-family bookshop sold; the weather was cold, the days short; my old eyes were bleary; in two days I copied what was takeable” and so on. So what survives is not even one-tenth. But [Yú] Yǎn was deeply versed in Yì-studies; whatever he selected and copied is its English-flowers — the general intent is still discernible.
[Lǐ] Xīnchuán’s auto-preface says he “drew the Wáng-shi, Zhāng-zi, Chéng-zi, and Master Zhū’s four traditions, and intermittently used Zhōu-zi, Shào-zi, and his late father’s expositions to supplement; the various ru’s character-meaning differences from the Táng up are also appended.” But [Yú] Yǎn’s colophon list does not include Zhōu-zi or Shào-zi but includes Guō Zǐhé — Zǐhé is the zì of Guō Yōng, the man who composed the Chuánjiā Yì shuō. Lǐ Xīnchuán’s original is not extant; which is correct cannot be settled.
Examining: Zhōu-zi’s Tōng shū and Shào-zi’s Huángjí jīngshì — although both expound Yì-principle — actually deliver their teachings outside the Yì itself, and are little usable as exegetical glosses. Only Guō Yōng’s reliance-on-the-canon expounding-of-meaning has a complete book. Perhaps Lǐ Xīnchuán’s preface has a copyist’s error.
Respectfully revised and submitted, tenth 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
Lǐ Xīnchuán (李心傳, 1167–1244), zì Wēizhī 微之, hào Xiùyán 秀巖, of Lóngzhōu 隆州 (modern Réngshòu, central Sìchuān). Catalog gives 1166–1243; CBDB id 10831 and the standard biographical sources (Sòngshǐ juan 438 in the Rúlín zhuàn; SòngYuán xuéàn) give 1167–1244. The 1167–1244 dating is followed here per the project rule of preferring externally verified dates. (The catalog’s offset by one year plausibly arises from a suì-counting-from-conception variant.)
His career was distinctive in that he never took the jìnshì; entry to office came in Bǎoqìng 2 (1226) by bùyī zhào 布衣召 (commoner-summons), placing him as Cóngzhèng láng 從政郎 (sub-official), detached to Mìgé jiàokān 秘閣校勘 (Imperial Library Collation Officer). Subsequently rose to Gōngbù shìláng 工部侍郎 (Vice-Minister of Works) concurrent with Mìshūjiān 秘書監 (Director of the Imperial Library) — the highest honor a non-jìnshì could attain in the Southern Sòng. He was the principal official-historian of the Southern Sòng court for the entire late period.
His historical works — the 200-juan Jiànyán yǐlái xìnián yàolù (a chronicle of 1127–1162) and the 40-juan Jiànyán yǐlái cháoyě zájì (court-and-private affairs miscellany of the same period) — together constitute one of the principal documentary foundations for all subsequent Southern-Sòng historiography. Modern Sòng-period studies (Charles Hartman, John Chaffee, Tao Jing-shen) treat Lǐ Xīnchuán as one of the most important Sòng-period chroniclers, comparable in scope and reliability to Sīmǎ Guāng’s Zīzhì tōngjiàn for the late Western Hàn through Northern Sòng.
The Bǐngzǐ Xué Yì biān is the principal Lǐ Xīnchuán contribution to Yì studies. The work is methodologically distinctive in three ways:
-
Selective compilation method. Rather than line-by-line commentary, the work selects what each of five (or six) Sòng masters has to say on each Yì passage, drawing on Wáng Bì, Zhāng Zài, Chéng Yí, Guō Yōng (per Yú Yǎn) or Zhōu Dūnyí + Shào Yōng (per the auto-preface), Zhū Xī, and the author’s father 李舜臣 Lǐ Shùnchén. The format makes it a polyphonic running commentary rather than a single-voice exposition.
-
Father-son scholarly continuity. Lǐ Shùnchén (the father) wrote a Yì běn zhuàn 易本傳, no longer extant in independent transmission but partly preserved through citation in this work and in 馮椅 Féng Yǐ’s Hòuzhāi Yì xué (KR1a0046). The methodological bridge between father and son: “my father took only the sage’s intent in drawing-the-hexagrams as his approach; Master Huìān [Zhū Xī] also took the sage’s intent in naming-the-lines as his approach. This is a small-difference, but they are also each-other’s outside-and-inside.”
-
Late-life conversion to Yì studies. Lǐ Xīnchuán’s coming-to-the-Yì in his forties is methodologically interesting: a chronicler-by-profession who, in middle age, turns to canonical Yì-studies and immediately adopts the ChéngZhū line as authoritative. The pedagogical pathway he records — first Wáng Bì (incomprehensible), then Zhāng Zài (outline visible), then Chéng Yí (clarity achieved), then his father’s Běn zhuàn and Zhū Xī’s Běnyì (sage’s drawing-and-naming intent fully recovered) — is one of the cleaner Sòng-period testimonies to the Dàoxué line’s hermeneutic supersession of the Wáng-Bì-line orthodoxy.
The composition window 1216 reflects the auto-preface’s exact 280-day completion within the bǐngzǐ year.
The Yú Yǎn extract represents perhaps 1/10 of the original 15-juan compilation. Modern scholarship has not been able to recover the lost material from independent witnesses. The surviving fragment is therefore both the principal documentary witness and a significant lacuna.
Translations and research
No European-language translation. Lǐ Xīnchuán is principally treated in the historiographical literature for his Yàolù and Zájì rather than for the Bǐngzǐ Xué Yì biān.
- Charles Hartman, The Making of Song Dynasty History: Sources and Narratives, 960–1279 CE (Cambridge, 2021) — Lǐ Xīnchuán treated extensively as a Southern-Sòng official historian.
- John W. Chaffee, The Thorny Gates of Learning in Sung China (Cambridge, 1985) — context for the bùyī zhào commoner-summons mode of office-entry.
- Tao Jing-shen, Two Sons of Heaven: Studies in Sung-Liao Relations (Univ. of Arizona, 1988) — uses the Yàolù extensively.
- Zhū Bóqūn 朱伯崑, Yìxué zhéxué shǐ, vol. 2 — Lǐ Xīnchuán briefly treated as a Sòng Yì-compiler.
- Modern punctuated edition by Zhōnghuá shūjú on the Sìkù base.
Other points of interest
The auto-preface’s pedagogical-arc narrative — beginner-blank-stare → Wáng-Bì-incomprehension → Zhāng-Zài-outline → Chéng-Yí-clarity → father-and-Zhū-Xī-completion — is one of the more vivid Sòng-period autobiographical Yì-pedagogical testimonies. It is comparable in form to (and cited alongside) the 尹焞 Yǐn Tūn → 祁寬 Qí Kuān transmission account preserved in the Cuì yán (KR1a0041) and to 李侗 Lǐ Tóng’s instructions to Zhū Xī on Yì-pedagogy.
The Yú Yǎn (1253–1314) hand-copy preservation pathway — borrowed from a bookshop, copied by an old man’s tired eyes during cold short winter days — is a small documentary monument of late-Sòng / early-Yuán scholarly bibliographic conditions. The fact that 9/10 of the original was lost during this transmission stage is a sobering reminder of the precarity of late-Sòng book transmission in the post-Mongol-conquest decades.
The Sìkù editors’ note that Lǐ Xīnchuán was honored by Gāo Sīdé as “a great ru of recent times” whose canonical scholarship was insufficiently appreciated — overshadowed by the historiographical reputation — is a small but real historiographical-vs-canonical-studies tension worth registering. Modern scholarship has confirmed Lǐ Xīnchuán as a major historian; whether his Yì work warrants the same scholarly recovery is an open question that the surviving 1/10 fragment does not entirely answer.