Yì sì 易俟
Awaiting [Future Verification of] the Yì by 喬萊
About the work
A Kāngxī-period Yìjīng commentary in eighteen juàn (catalog meta records 12 — the discrepancy reflects different editions) by Qiáo Lái 喬萊 (1642–1694) of Bǎoyìng 寳應, Jiāngsū. The work miscellaneously gathers Sòng, Yuán, and Míng-onward Yì commentators’ doctrines and inserts Qiáo’s own opinions. Charts at the head of the work are listed but Qiáo declines Shào Yōng’s 邵雍 Hé tú Luò shū prior-heaven-square-and-circle and posterior-heaven schemes; for hexagram-variation he sets aside the Yú Fān 虞翻-onward technical traditions and adopts Lái Zhīdé’s 來知德 (KR1a0100) fǎn duì (inverted-paired) method.
His canonical exegesis is heavily historical-exemplary: he cites Wáng Mǎng 王莽, Dǒng Zhuó 董卓, Ān Lùshān 安祿山, Shǐ Sīmíng 史思明 to gloss the xián rén zhī xiōng 咥人之凶 of Lǚ 履 6/3; cites Yān Wáng Dàn 燕王旦, Lǐ Jiànchéng 李建成, Yuán Jí 元吉, Lǐ Gāoxù 李高煦 for the unique extreme misfortune of Lí 離 9/4 (the most inauspicious of the three hundred eighty-four lines); cites Wēn Tǐrén 溫體仁 and Wén Zhènmèng 文震孟 (recent late-Míng cases) for the Xiǎo Chù 小畜 9/3 case of a small man entrapping the gentleman. The work draws methodologically on Chéng Yí’s 程頤 Yìchuán and Yáng Wànlǐ’s 楊萬里 Chéngzhāi yì zhuàn (KR1a0048) — combining principle-and-history exposition while avoiding metaphysical talk.
The Sìkù editors’ assessment is qualifiedly approving: Qiáo’s exegesis is “principle-related to law-and-admonition” (理闗法戒) rather than the “empty discussions of the heavenly way and the mind-substance, falling back into LǎoZhuāng” that the editors find too common. One small philological complaint: Qiáo’s Guān 觀 6/4 Xiàng gloss draws extensively on Gù Yánwǔ’s 顧炎武 Fāng yīn 方音 doctrine (proving Qiáo had read the Yīn xué wǔ shū), yet his Xiàng zhuàn phonological correlations elsewhere still follow the discredited Wú Yù 吳棫 — “incomprehensible.” The work covers only the upper-and-lower scriptures; the Xìcí and after are entirely absent — by design, not from textual loss.
Tiyao
Sìkù tíyào (translated, condensed): The Yì sì in eighteen juàn was composed by Qiáo Lái of our [Qīng] dynasty. Lái, zì Shílín, was a man of Bǎoyìng. In Kāngxī jǐwèi (1679) he was summoned for Bóxué hóngcí and held office through Hànlín Reader-in-Waiting. The book miscellaneously gathers the old doctrines of various commentators on the Yì from the Sòng and Yuan onward, and joins them with his own ideas. Charts at the front do not adopt Master Shào’s Hé and Luò, prior-heaven and posterior-heaven, square-and-circle horizontal-and-straight doctrines; for variation hexagrams he also does not take the various houses from Yú Fān down, but takes Lái Zhīdé’s fǎn duì.
His glossing of the canon mostly pursues human affairs and verifies them with ancient and modern order-and-disorder, gain-and-loss. As for example: he holds that Lǚ hexagram 6/3 is the master line of the formed hexagram, and adduces Mǎng [Wáng Mǎng], [Dǒng] Zhuó, Ān [Lùshān] and [Shǐ] Sī[míng] to gloss “the xián rén zhī xiōng” — the bite-people misfortune. He says that of the three hundred eighty-four lines only Lí 9/4 is the most inauspicious, and adduces Yān Wáng Dàn, [Lǐ] Jiànchéng [元吉], and [Lǐ] Gāoxù as evidence. He says Xiǎo Chù 9/3 is a small man capturing-and-restraining the gentleman, and uses the recent affair of Wēn Tǐrén and Wén Zhènmèng as exposition. Apparently drawing both on Yīchuān’s Yì zhuàn and on the Chéngzhāi Yì zhuàn, not engaging in dim-distant talk. Although not necessarily fitting in every case, his principle-relating to law-and-admonition is preferable to the many who in empty words on the heavenly way and the mind-substance fall back into LǎoZhuāng.
Only on Guān 6/4’s Xiàng statement does he fully cite Gù Yánwǔ’s Fāng yīn doctrine — so he has not failed to see the Yīn xué wǔ shū; yet for the Xiàng zhuàn’s phonological correlations he still follows Wú Yù’s old [doctrine] — this is incomprehensible.
The canonical text uses Wáng Bì’s base. He glosses only the upper and lower scriptures; from the Xìcí on, all is uniformly absent. Apparently the import is mastered around line-by-line elucidation of meaning, hence the rest is not reached — not loss-by-omission.
Respectfully collated, the ninth 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 Qiáo’s 1667 jìnshì and 1694 death; the bracket here adopts a conservative span. The work is undated internally.
The work is a representative early-to-mid Kāngxī court-Confucian Yì commentary. Methodologically it stands at a middle position: SòngYuánMíng yìli synthesis with selective acceptance of late-Míng xiàngshù (Lái Zhīdé’s fǎn duì) and rejection of the Sòng chart-tradition; phonologically it is informed by Gù Yánwǔ but inconsistently applied. The historical-exemplification method (Wáng Mǎng, Ān Lùshān, recent Míng cases) is in the Yáng Wànlǐ tradition, but Qiáo’s combination of late-Hàn / Táng / late-Míng cases gives it a distinctively Kāngxī-period historical horizon.
The work’s deliberate restriction to the upper-and-lower scripture (omitting the Xìcí and other Wings) is its principal structural choice and is correctly framed by the Sìkù editors as design rather than loss. The use of recent late-Míng historical cases (Wēn Tǐrén, Wén Zhènmèng died in the 1630s) reflects Qiáo’s Kāngxī-court positioning — confident enough in the new dynasty to use the late Míng as exemplary historical material.
The Sìkù editors’ specific complaints — the Wú Yù / Gù Yánwǔ phonological inconsistency — is a small but characteristic kǎozhèng point. Qiáo’s failure to apply Gù’s method consistently is read as a small lapse in an otherwise serviceable work.
Translations and research
No substantial monograph in Western languages located. For Qiáo’s broader Bóxué hóngcí career see ECCP under “Ch’iao Lai.”
Other points of interest
The deliberate restriction of the work to the upper-and-lower scripture (omitting the Wings) is one of several Kāngxī-Yōngzhèng-period editorial choices that mark a partial reaction against the YuánMíng Wǔjīng dàquán model of comprehensive Yì-glossing in favor of focused per-hexagram exegesis. The phonological-method inconsistency (Gù vs. Wú) is also typical of the transition period: Gù’s Yīn xué wǔ shū was published in 1667 but was not fully assimilated by court Confucians until the early eighteenth century.