Zhōuyì huìtōng 周易會通
Convergence and Penetration of the Zhōu Changes by 董真卿
About the work
A monumental Yuán-period synthesis of Yìjīng exegesis in fourteen juàn by Dǒng Zhēnqīng 董真卿 (zì Jìzhēn 季真) of Póyáng 鄱陽, a pupil of Hú Yīguì 胡一桂 (胡一桂). The work integrates four strata of material into a single layered commentary: (1) the four-sage scriptural text — the Fú Xī 伏羲 hexagrams, King Wén’s 文王 hexagram statements, the Duke of Zhōu’s 周公 line statements, and the Confucian Tuàn 彖, Xiàng 象, Wényán 文言, and other “Wings” — laid out so that each Wing is appended to the canonical text it explains where applicable, with the unattached Wings (the Xìcí 繫辭, Shuōguà 說卦, Xùguà 序卦, Záguà 雜卦) gathered after the sixty-fourth hexagram; (2) interlinear glosses from Chéng Yí’s 程頤 Yìchuán 易傳 and Zhū Xī’s 朱熹 Běnyì 本義, marked “Master Chéng says” / “Master Zhū says” — the Jíjiě 集解 layer; (3) further extracts from the Chéngshì jīngshuō 程氏經說 and the Zhūzǐ yǔlù 朱子語錄 appended to each line — the Fùlù 附錄 layer; (4) Hú Yīguì’s zuǎnshū 纂疏 plus further later voices, marked “Mr So-and-so says” — the Zuǎnzhù 纂註 layer. Originally titled Zhōuyì jīngzhuàn jí ChéngZhū jiě fùlù zuǎnzhù 周易經傳集程朱解附錄纂註, it took its final name Huìtōng on the principle that all paths in the Yì converge and penetrate one another. The work is one of the principal late-Yuán summae of Yìxué and a key conduit through which late-Sòng Zhū Xī school Yì learning passed into Míng pedagogy.
Tiyao
Respectfully submitted: the Zhōuyì huìtōng in fourteen juàn was composed by Dǒng Zhēnqīng of the Yuán. Zhēnqīng, zì Jìzhēn, was a man of Póyáng. He once received instruction from Hú Yīguì; this compilation is in fact based on Yīguì’s zuǎnshū, broadened to include the various commentators. It was originally entitled Zhōuyì jīngzhuàn jí ChéngZhū jiě fùlù zuǎnzhù 周易經傳集程朱解附錄纂註 — that is, his arrangement was to set out the scripture of Fú Xī, King Wén, and the Duke of Zhōu, with the wings of Confucius placed after them, each section under its own heading, so that they would be unified yet not promiscuously mixed. The wings without a passage of scripture to which they could be attached were grouped collectively after the sixty-four hexagrams; this is the jīngzhuàn 經傳 layer.
He then took Master Chéng’s zhuàn and Master Zhū’s Běnyì and inserted them as paired glosses below; this is the jíjiě 集解 layer. Master Chéng’s Jīngshuō and Master Zhū’s Yǔlù are continued after the zhuàn and yì; this is the fùlù 附錄 layer. He further took Yīguì’s zuǎnshū and supplemented it with the various sayings; this is the zuǎnzhù 纂註 layer. The work was later renamed Huìtōng 會通 because Master Chéng’s zhuàn uses the Wáng Bì 王弼 base-text, while the Běnyì uses the Lǚ Zǔqiān 呂祖謙 (呂祖謙) base-text, so the orderings are not the same; and where one takes principle for its main concern and the other takes symbol-and-divination, the original imports also differ. The earlier Confucians, in their various sayings, also see-the-wise-here and see-the-benevolent-there, each illuminating one meaning, contending sharply for sectarian standpoints.
Zhēnqīng held that, although the various houses of Yì take different paths, they have a common destination. He therefore searched widely and gathered broadly, did not adhere to any one doctrine, and worked at holding the balance between the symbol-and-number and the principle-and-meaning houses. Even the books of Sū Shì 蘇軾, Zhū Zhèn 朱震, and Lín Lì 林栗 — which Master Zhū had not adopted — he likewise records. Compared with Hú Yīguì, who would not record so much as a single character of Yáng Wànlǐ’s 楊萬里 zhuàn, the breadth of his outlook may be called “the blue [dye] surpassing its source [the indigo plant].”
Only in his rearranging of the scriptural text does he fail to keep the strict and severe intent of the earlier Confucians; here one need not contrive arguments in his defense.
Respectfully collated, the fifth month of the forty-sixth year of Qiánlóng (1781). Editor-in-chief: Jì Yún 紀昀, Lù Xīxióng 陸錫熊, Sūn Shìyì 孫士毅. Chief proofreader: Lù Fèichí 陸費墀.
Abstract
Composition is unusually well-documented. Dǒng’s self-preface (yuán xù 原序) is dated “the year for using the dàyǎn numerology, the founding year of Tiānlì, the dragon star at wùchén, the month of the opening of heaven, ten days after yángfù 陽復, the day gēngchén” — i.e. Tiānlì 1 = 1328, the eleventh-month gēngchén day after the winter-solstice yángfù; this is the date the manuscript was substantially complete. His son Dǒng Xuǎn’s 僎 postscript, dated yuántǒng 元統 2 (1334), records that he had taken the work to Fújiàn 閩 to have it cut to blocks. The dating bracket here therefore runs from 1328 (manuscript) to 1334 (printed edition).
The self-preface is also a substantial methodological statement on its own terms. Dǒng presents his project as a corrective to two opposed bibliographic temptations — the late-Sòng “today’s Yì” tradition (Fèi Zhí 費直, Zhèng Xuán 鄭玄, Wáng Bì 王弼) of mixing scripture and Wings, and the late-Sòng “old Yì” recovery (Lǚ Wēizhòng 呂微仲, Cháo Yǐdào 晁以道, Lǚ Zǔqiān) of separating them entirely — and as carrying forward the partial syntheses of Dǒng Kǎi 董楷 of Tiāntái 天台 (Xiánchún period) and Hú Yīguì. The compositional pattern (scripture marked plain, Wings marked white-character, ChéngZhū paired glosses below, yǔlù extracts following, then zuǎnzhù gleanings) is set out in detail in the Fánlì 凡例 (the textual conventions, which I have read in the source).
The fánlì also contains a small but instructive editorial polemic: Dǒng deliberately preserves the names of the disciples who recorded each yǔlù item, against (he says) the mid- to late-thirteenth-century practice of suppressing the recorders’ names — a practice he considers bad bibliographic ethics, on the analogy of how one should not strip the Lúnyǔ and Mèngzǐ of the names of Confucius’s and Mencius’s disciples respectively.
The work served as a principal YuánMíng conduit for the Hú Fāngpíng 胡方平 → Hú Yīguì → Dǒng Zhēnqīng transmission of late-Sòng Yì learning. Its inclusivity — Sū Shì, Zhū Zhèn, Lín Lì, all of whom Zhū Xī had set aside, are nonetheless quoted — earned it the praise of the Sìkù editors as exceeding its master Hú Yīguì in breadth, while its rearranging of the scriptural text drew their criticism. The list of cited commentators (Xìngshì 姓氏) is preserved at the head of the work and constitutes a substantial witness to SòngYuán Yì exegetical history.
Translations and research
No substantial monograph in Western languages. Treated in standard Chinese surveys of Yuán Yìxué (Zhū Bóhūi 朱伯崑, Yìxué zhéxué shǐ 易學哲學史, vol. 3) as the principal Yuán-period summa within the Hú Yīguì school. The work also figures in Hon Tze-ki’s English-language treatments of Sòng-Yuán Yìxué (e.g. The Yijing and Chinese Politics, 2005) as an example of the late-Yuán synthesis.
Other points of interest
The methodological fánlì of the Huìtōng, with its explicit defense of preserving recorders’ names in yǔlù citations, is one of the most articulate Yuán-period statements of editorial principle in jīngxué and would repay separate study. Dǒng’s mediation between the “today’s Yì” and “old Yì” traditions of arrangement also makes the work a principal late-Yuán witness to the by-then long-running debate over the proper textual format of the Yì.