Cóngshān dú Zhōuyì 淙山讀周易
Reading the Zhōuyì at Cóngshān
by 方實孫 Fāng Shísūn (撰) — zì Duānzhòng 端仲, fl. mid-thirteenth century, native place not securely recorded; documented through 劉克莊 Liú Kèzhuāng’s collected works and Fújiàn provincial-gazetteer references.
About the work
A twenty-one-juan Yì-commentary by Fāng Shísūn 方實孫 — a Sòng-period scholar of obscure biographical record. The Sìkù tiyao notes: “[Fāng] Shísūn — one does not know whence he comes from”; the only contemporary attestation is 劉克莊 Liú Kèzhuāng’s reference in his collected works, which records his zì (Duānzhòng) and provides a small biographical sketch:
He took his composed Yì shuō and submitted it to court; in commoner-status entered the Shǐjú 史局 (Historiographical Bureau). The contemporary chief minister, on account of his repeated submission of memorials [to the spring-office for consideration], wished to have him exempted from the spring-office requirement; [he] replied. Suddenly was reported-up by the fēngwén (rumor-and-hearsay channel) and dismissed. He returned hàorán [in flowing-vast spirit].
His ultimate fate is unrecorded. CBDB places him in connection to his father-in-law 劉光叔 Liú Guāngshū; Fújiàn tōngzhì 149.31b is the principal documentary source — placing his native place plausibly in Fújiàn.
The original work-title (per the Sìkù base) was simply Dú Zhōuyì 讀周易 (“Reading the Zhōuyì”). Per Zhū Yízūn’s Jīngyì kǎo, the proper title is Cóngshān dú Zhōuyì jì 淙山讀周易記 — i.e., the present base preserves only an abbreviated form. The Sìkù editors restored the longer title.
The Cáo Róng 曹溶 reference (cited in Jīngyì kǎo): “Sòngzhì gives 8 juan; the Dànshēngtáng 澹生堂 catalog gives 10 juan; the Jùlètáng 聚樂堂 catalog gives 16 juan; today’s circulating bases are two — one without juan-divisions; one does not know which is correct.” The present Sìkù base divides the upper jīng in 8 juan, lower jīng in 8 juan, Xìcí in 2 juan, Xù guà / Shuō guà / Zá guà each in 1 juan — total 21 juan. The Sìkù editors note: “one does not know who divided [it].”
Methodologically the work develops 朱熹 Zhū Xī’s guàbiàn tú 卦變圖 (hexagram-transformation chart) into an Yì guàbiàn hé tú 易卦變合圖 (“Combined Chart of Hexagram-Transformations”) — explicitly designed to supplement the Yì xué qǐméng’s incomplete coverage. The exposition is “chiefly based on the line-imagery, not setting up empty discussion” (tiyao). The methodological core is articulated in the auto-preface’s compact ontological formula:
The Yì is the Way and the imagery-and-numerology. Speaking of the Way, the imagery-and-numerology is contained within. Does the Way exist? — the Xìcí says: ‘the Yì has no body.’ Does the Way not exist? — the Xìcí says: ‘the Yì has the Tàijí*.’ That is, the Way emerges from non-being into being.*
This twin-citation reading of two apparently-contradictory Xìcí statements as constituting a complementary doctrine of being-and-non-being is methodologically clean.
The auto-preface’s substantive textual-criticism deployment: Fāng Shísūn argues from yáo-evidence about authorship of the canon-and-commentary parts.
Against King-Wén-only authorship of the Tuàn / Xiàng zhuàn: the auto-preface cites four passages:
- Suí hexagram upper-6: “Wáng yòng hēng yú Xīshān” 王用亨於西山 (the king sacrifices at Western-Mountain).
- Shēng 升 hexagram 6-4: “Wáng yòng hēng yú Qíshān” 王用亨於岐山 (the king sacrifices at Mount Qí).
- Míngyí Tuàn: “Nèi wénmíng ér wài róushùn yǐ méng dànán; Wénwáng yǐ zhī” 内文明而外柔順以蒙大難，文王以之 (“inwardly bright, outwardly yielding, suffering great difficulty — Wénwáng experienced this”).
- Gé Tuàn: “Tiāndì gé ér sìshí chéng; TāngWǔ gémìng shùn hū tiān ér yìng hū rén” 天地革而四時成，湯武革命順乎天而應乎人 (“Heaven-and-Earth transform and the four-seasons complete; TāngWǔ transformed-the-mandate, complying with Heaven and responding to the people”).
These references — to Wénwáng (King Wén) in the third person and to TāngWǔ (ShāngTāng’s overthrow of Xià, and Wǔwáng’s overthrow of Shāng) — establish that the Tuàn / Xiàng (where the references occur) cannot be by King Wén himself. The Sìkù tiyao: “[on this point] establishes a definite meaning — zì wèi què yì 自為確義.”
Against Duke-of-Zhōu authorship of the yáocí: Fāng Shísūn extends the argument with:
- Dàyǒu 6-3: “Gōng yòng hēng yú tiānzǐ” 公用亨于天子 (the duke sacrifices to the Son-of-Heaven).
- Jiě upper-6: “Gōng yòng shè sǔn yú gāoyōng zhī shàng” 公用射隼於髙墉之上 (the duke shoots a hawk atop the high wall).
- Xiǎoguò 6-5: “Gōng yì qǔ bǐ zài xué” 公弋取彼在穴 (the duke shoots and takes those in the cave).
Argument: the yáocí’s references to “duke” (gōng 公) third-personally cannot be by the Duke of Zhōu (Zhōugōng) himself. But the Sìkù tiyao rejects this argument: “Expounders of the Yì originally do not say that ‘duke’ refers to Duke-of-Zhōu — [Fāng Shísūn’s argument] is necessarily not so.” The Sìkù editors recognize the methodological move (extending the King-Wén argument to the Duke-of-Zhōu authorship question) but find Fāng’s specific evidence inadequate, since the yáocí’s “duke” was traditionally read as referring to feudal gōng in general, not to the Duke of Zhōu specifically.
Overall verdict: “Yet the great-intent, compared with the various schools, is more pure-and-substantive” (qí dàzhǐ zé jiào zhū jiā wéi chúnshí yǐ 然其大㫖則較諸家為淳實矣). The work is a substantively grounded xiàngshù-with-textual-criticism synthesis.
The composition window 1255–1258 reflects: the auto-preface’s Bǎoyòu wùwǔ third-month-first-day date (1258); the immediately preceding years as the substantive composition period.
Tiyao
We respectfully submit that Cóngshān dú Zhōuyì jì in 21 juan was composed by Fāng Shísūn of the Sòng. [Fāng] Shísūn — one does not know whence he comes from. Only Liú Kèzhuāng’s Hòushān jí has Shísūn’s Yuèfǔ colophon, calling his zì Duānzhòng; further: Shísūn’s Jīngshǐ shuō colophon — he had submitted his Yì shuō to court, with commoner-status entered the Shǐjú. The contemporary chief minister, on account of his repeated submission of memorials, wished to have him exempted from the spring-office; [he] replied — was suddenly reported by the fēngwén and dismissed; hàorán returned [home]. What he ended-with cannot be researched.
This book’s old base only carries the title Dú Zhōuyì; we examine [Zhū] Yízūn’s Jīngyì kǎo as Cóngshān dú Zhōuyì jì — evidently this base has transmission-copying-error-and-missing. The Jīngyì kǎo cites Cáo Róng’s word: Sòngzhì gives 8 juan; the Dànshēngtáng catalog gives 10 juan; the Jùlètáng catalog gives 16 juan; today’s circulating bases are two: one is not divided into juan; one does not know which is correct. This base has upper jīng in 8 juan, lower jīng in 8 juan, Xìcí in 2 juan, Xù guà and Shuō guà and Zá guà each in 1 juan; one also does not know who divided [it].
His book takes Master Zhū’s guàbiàn tú and separately makes an Yì guàbiàn hé tú to supplement what the Yì xué qǐméng did not yet contain. His exposition is mostly chiefly-rooted in line-imagery, not setting up empty discussion.
The auto-preface has: “The Yì is the Way and the imagery-and-numerology; speaking of the Way, the imagery-and-numerology are within. Does the Way exist? — the Xìcí says ‘the Yì has no body.’ Does the Way not exist? — the Xìcí says ‘the Yì has the Tàijí*.’ That is, the Way emerges from non-being into being.*” One may recognize the master-orientation.
His evidence: Suí’s upper-9 line “the king sacrifices at Western-Mountain”; Shēng’s 6-4 line “the king sacrifices at Mount Qí”; Míngyí Tuàn’s “Wénwáng experienced this”; Gé Tuàn’s “TāngWǔ experienced this” — to evidence that the six lines [of Tuàn / Xiàng] are not by King Wén’s composition — establishes a definite meaning by itself.
His evidence: Dàyǒu’s 6-3 line “the duke sacrifices to the Son-of-Heaven”; Jiě’s upper-6 line “the duke shoots a hawk atop the high wall”; Xiǎoguò’s 6-5 line “the duke shoots and takes those in the cave” — to evidence that the yáo-wording is not by Duke-of-Zhōu’s composition — must be not so. Expounders of the Yì originally do not say that “duke” refers to Duke-of-Zhōu.
But the great-intent, compared with the various schools, is more pure-and-substantive.
Respectfully revised and submitted, fifth month of the forty-sixth year of Qiánlóng [1781].
General Compilers: Jǐ Yún 紀昀, Lù Xīxióng 陸錫熊, Sūn Shìyì 孫士毅. General Reviser: Lù Fèichí 陸費墀.
Abstract
Fāng Shísūn (方實孫, fl. mid-thirteenth century; lifedates not securely recorded), zì Duānzhòng 端仲, native place plausibly Fújiàn (per Fújiàn tōngzhì 149.31b reference). Father-in-law was 劉光叔 Liú Guāngshū. Submitted his Yì shuō (= the present Cóngshān dú Zhōuyì) to the Lǐzōng court and was admitted in commoner-status to the Shǐjú 史局 (Historiographical Bureau); subsequently dismissed under unclear circumstances. The auto-preface’s 1258 date suggests submission around that year.
Methodologically Fāng Shísūn is a late-Lǐzōng-period Zhū-Cài-school xiàngshù-and-textual-criticism synthesizer. The Yì guàbiàn hé tú (Combined Chart of Hexagram-Transformations) develops Zhū Xī’s Qǐméng materials substantively — the work is methodologically a post-Cài-Yuándìng completion of unfinished xiàngshù-pedagogical apparatus. The auto-preface’s two-fold Xìcí-citation reading (the Yì has no body / the Yì has the Tàijí) gives a being-emerges-from-non-being framework that ties the xiàngshù apparatus to the Dàoxué metaphysical mainstream.
The textual-critical argument against King-Wén-only authorship is methodologically standard and was widely accepted in the Sòng (Wú Rénjié KR1a0042, Lǐ Guò KR1a0049 disagreed but on different grounds). The extension to Duke-of-Zhōu authorship of the yáocí is more ambitious and was rejected by the Sìkù editors and most subsequent scholarship; the gōng references in the yáocí are conventionally read as referring to general feudal-prince figures, not specifically to the Duke of Zhōu.
The “pure-and-substantive” verdict (chúnshí 淳實) reflects the work’s combination of methodological clarity, xiàngshù technical engagement, and avoidance of speculative-mystical extravagance — placing it in the late-Sòng Zhū-Cài-mainline xiàngshù compilation tradition alongside Cài Yuān (KR1a0052, KR1a0053) and Shuì Yúquán (KR1a0057).
The composition window 1255–1258 reflects the firmly-fixed 1258 auto-preface date with a brief preceding composition arc. The fēngwén dismissal that ended Fāng Shísūn’s brief court employment plausibly happened shortly after submission.
Translations and research
No European-language translation. The work is principally consulted in the Chinese-language Yì-history literature.
- Zhū Bóqūn 朱伯崑, Yìxué zhéxué shǐ, vol. 2 — Fāng Shísūn briefly treated as a Cài-school synthesizer.
- Wáng Tiějūn 王鐵均, Sòngdài Yìxué shǐ — chapter on the late-Lǐzōng-period Yì tradition.
- Liào Mínghuó 廖名活, articles in Zhōuyì yánjiū on the guàbiàn charts.
- Modern punctuated editions on the Sìkù base.
Other points of interest
The Yì guàbiàn hé tú — combining Zhū Xī’s various guàbiàn materials into a single integrated chart — is methodologically interesting as a meta-pedagogical compilation. The Sòng-period xiàngshù tradition had produced numerous fragmentary chart-and-discussion materials; Fāng Shísūn’s contribution is the integration of these fragments into a single visualizable structure. The procedure anticipates the YuánMíng Yì-textbook integration efforts (Hú Bǐngwén 胡炳文, the Sìshū wǔjīng dàquán compilers).
The fēngwén (rumor-and-hearsay) dismissal mechanism that ended Fāng Shísūn’s court career is one of the more typical late-Sòng political-procedural details. The mechanism allowed memorialists to be dismissed on uncorroborated reports — a key tool of late-Sòng factional politics. Fāng Shísūn’s career arc — commoner submission → court appointment → factional dismissal — is paradigmatic of the late-Sòng bùyī zhào 布衣召 / fēngwén bà 風聞罷 cycle.