Yì yì gǔ xiàng tōng 易義古象通
Penetration of the Ancient Symbols of the Meanings of the Changes by 魏濬
About the work
A late-Míng Yìjīng commentary in eight juàn by Wèi Jùn 魏濬 (b. 1549, jìnshì 1604, fl. 1612) of Sōngxī 松溪. The work opens with eight programmatic essays — the Míng xiàng zǒng lùn 明象總論 — on the foundations of symbol-reading: (1) origin of the ancient symbols (Yuán gǔ xiàng 原古象); (2) principle and the transmission of symbols (Lǐ chuán xiàng 理傳象); (3) proper symbols of the eight trigrams (Bāguà zhèng xiàng 八卦正象); (4) positions of the six lines (Liù yáo wèi 六爻位); (5) strokes of hexagrams and lines (Guà yáo huà 卦爻畫); (6) hexagram-variation (Guà biàn 卦變); (7) component-trigrams (Hù tǐ 互體); and (8) inverted-paired and varying lines (Fǎn duì dòng yáo 反對動爻). The argumentative core is that the Yì of King Wén and the Duke of Zhōu manifests principle through symbol (即象著理), while the Yì of Confucius elucidates the symbols through principle (以理明象); the work is therefore titled “gǔ xiàng tōng” — penetration of the ancient symbols — and prefixed with “yì yì” — meaning of the Yì — to signal that it reads meaning through symbol. The work draws on HànWèiJìnTáng exegesis where these stay close to the canonical text, while rejecting the cyclical-numerological apparatus of Jiāo Yánshòu 焦贛 and Jīng Fáng 京房. The Sìkù editors note Zhū Yízūn’s 朱彝尊 Jīngyì kǎo miscites the title as Zhōuyì gǔ xiàng tōng 周易古象通, dropping the yì yì 易義 prefix.
Tiyao
Sìkù tíyào (translated): Respectfully submitted: the Yì yì gǔ xiàng tōng in eight juàn was composed by Wèi Jùn of the Míng. Jùn, zì Cāngshuǐ, was a man of Sōngxī. He was a jìnshì of the jiǎchén year of Wànlì (1604), and successively held office up to Right Vice Censor-in-Chief, Grand Coordinator of Húguǎng. The book has at the front eight chapters of “Symbol-Manifesting General Discussion” (Míng xiàng zǒng lùn): first, Yuán gǔ xiàng; second, Lǐ chuán xiàng; third, Bāguà zhèng xiàng; fourth, Liù yáo wèi; fifth, Guà yáo huà; sixth, Guà biàn; seventh, Hù tǐ; eighth, Fǎn duì dòng yáo.
The general import is that the Yì of [Kings] Wén and Zhōu manifests principle through symbol, while the Yì of Confucius makes clear the symbol through principle. Further, of what was discussed by the various Hàn, Wèi, Jìn, and Táng gentlemen on the meaning of the symbols, he takes those that are close to the upright. Hence the name gǔ xiàng tōng — Penetration of the Ancient Symbols — prefixed with yì yì 易義: the meaning of the Yì, signifying that it is by symbol that the meaning is to be penetrated.
Zhū Yízūn’s Jīngyì kǎo loses the two characters “yì yì” and changes the name to Zhōuyì gǔ xiàng tōng, which is at variance with Jùn’s intent in naming the book. The citations within are mostly refined and discerning; he occasionally fuses with his own opinions, also able to set forth his own views — the analysis and dissection are quite deep. He is not of the same kind as those who steal and copy and merely re-echo.
Respectfully collated, the third month of the forty-third year of Qiánlóng (1778). 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 bracketed by Wèi’s career. He passed the jìnshì in 1604; the catalog meta gives his attested period as fl. 1612. The bracket here (1604–1620) covers his early- to mid-career period in office. The work is undated internally; the Sìkù notice does not narrow it.
The work is a substantive late-Míng late-Wànlì Yì commentary in the symbol-and-principle synthesis tradition, methodologically distinguished by its eight programmatic introductory essays — an unusually self-conscious framing for a Míng Yì commentary, more in the Sòng tradition (cf. Zhū Xī’s Yì xué qǐ méng) than the YuánMíng commentary norm. Wèi’s first essay, Yuán gǔ xiàng, contains a substantial historical reconstruction of the Hàn-onward symbol-tradition — running through the lineage Zǐxià 子夏 → Shāng Qú 商瞿 (principle line) and Jiāo Gàn 焦贛 → Jīng Fáng (cyclical-numerological line), with Mǎ Róng 馬融, Zhèng Xuán 鄭玄, and the rest of the Hàn classical tradition between them — and ends with a substantial defense of Wáng Bì 王弼’s symbol-handling against the more radical jìnshǎn 淨扇 sweeping-away of Xíng Héshū 邢和叔, before joining Chéng Yí 程頤 and Zhū Xī in arguing that even those Sòng commentators tacitly relied on symbol-derivation. This historiographical framing is itself an important late-Míng synthesis statement.
The Sìkù editors’ assessment is unusually warm: they grant the work both substantive citation-discipline and capacity for original reading. The bibliographic correction to Zhū Yízūn’s mistitling is a small but substantive kǎozhèng contribution.
Translations and research
No substantial monograph in Western languages located. Wèi figures occasionally in studies of late-Míng Fújiàn Yìxué (Mǐn-xué tradition); Zhū Bóhūi, Yìxué zhéxué shǐ vol. 4, treats him briefly.
Other points of interest
The eight-essay introductory frame is a small but distinctive late-Míng experiment in Yì-commentary method — neither a continuous self-preface nor a fánlì but a structured set of position-papers on technical issues. It would repay study as a transitional form between the YuánMíng fánlì convention and the Qīng-period preference for self-standing methodological essays.