Dú Yì rì chāo 讀易日鈔
Daily Transcribed Notes on Reading the Yì by 張烈
About the work
An early-Kāngxī Yìjīng commentary in eight juàn by 張烈 Zhāng Liè (1622–1685) of Dàxīng 大興, dedicated single-mindedly to 朱熹 Zhū Xī’s Běnyì tradition. The work covers the upper scripture (juàn 1–3), lower scripture (juàn 4–6), Xìcí shàng (juàn 7), and Xìcí xià + Shuōguà + Xùguà + Záguà (juàn 8). Zhāng’s argumentative position: the Yì is xiàng — and although words can be exhausted, symbol cannot. Fú Xī drew the odd-and-even strokes, doubled them and tripled them, then doubled again to six; King Wén and the Duke of Zhōu attached Tuàn to each hexagram and lines to each stroke, all by borrowing-things to take-symbol — without speaking principle, without naming event — yet myriad events and myriad principles are entirely contained. The general orientation is to “set up event by symbol, set forth principle by event” (因象設事就事陳理) — what the Sìkù editors call “still substantial among Yì-exposition houses.” Composed and revised over many years, the manuscript was still being collated against Mǐnxué (Cài Qīng / Lín Xīyuán) authorities in Zhāng’s last days.
The Sìkù notice contains a substantial editorial digression: Zhāng’s pupil 楊允長 Yáng Yǔncháng had prefixed to the work a sī shì yì 私謚議 — argument in defense of his pupils’ having privately conferred on Zhāng the posthumous title Zhìdào xiānsheng 志道先生. The Sìkù editors cite 司馬光 Sīmǎ Guāng’s firm rejection of a parallel attempt for 張載 Zhāng Zài (the Sòng Lǐxué master) in the Zhāng Zǐ quán shū preface — and excise Yáng’s defense from the Sìkù edition “in order to forestall the gradual rise of empty reputation and self-display.”
Tiyao
Sìkù tíyào (translated, condensed): The Dú Yì rì chāo in eight juàn was composed by Zhāng Liè of our [Qīng] dynasty. Liè, zì Wǔchéng, was a man of Dàxīng. He was a jìnshì of the gēngxū year of Kāngxī (1670). In jǐwèi (1679) he was elevated by Bóxué hóngcí and held office to Left Companion of the Office of the Heir Apparent.
This book takes Master Zhū’s Běnyì as principal throughout. He says: “Yì is symbol; words have an end, but symbol has no end. Fú Xī drew strokes as odd-and-even, doubled and tripled and doubled again to six; [Kings] Wén and Zhōu hexagram by hexagram attached Tuàn and stroke by stroke attached lines — all by borrowing-things and taking-symbol, without speaking principle, without indicating event, yet myriad events and myriad principles entirely contained.” The great import is in establishing event by symbol and setting forth principle by event — among Yì-exposition houses he is one of the substantial ones.
It was originally his son Yì, grandsons Shēng and Jì, who actually said: “This draft has been pruned and polished forty-some times. In the days before he laid down the bamboo strips [i.e., before death] he was still collating with the Méng yǐn, Tōng diǎn, Cún yí, and the rest, examining and correcting the two meanings of zhī lái cáng wǎng 知來藏往 [knowing-the-future and storing-the-past], adding modifications,” and so on. So his application of strength may also be called diligent.
When Liè died, his pupils privately conferred the posthumous title Zhìdào xiānsheng. Yáng Yǔncháng composed one chapter of Sī shì yì (Argument for a Private Posthumous Title) and prefixed it at the head of this book. Long ago when the Sòng Confucian Zhāng Zài died, his pupils wished to compose a private posthumous title for him; Sī Mǎ Guāng forcefully argued its impropriety. The contemporary hand-letter is still preserved at the head of the Zhāngzǐ quán shū. The ancients used ritual to handle people; they did not wish wantonly to esteem each other and so to violate the imperial canon of bestowing names. Their stringency was like this. How can Yǔncháng and the others not have heard of this? We now record this book and excise this argument, in order to forestall the gradual rise of empty reputation and self-display.
Respectfully collated, the second month of the forty-fourth year of Qiánlóng (1779). 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 Zhāng’s 1670 jìnshì and 1685 death. The work was revised “forty-some times” over fifteen years according to the family testimony. The bracket here adopts these dates.
The work is a workmanlike early-Kāngxī Zhū Xī school Yì commentary, methodologically continuous with the Mǐnxué tradition (蔡清 Cài Qīng → 林希元 Lín Xīyuán) Zhāng was actively engaging with at his death. Within the early-Qīng court-Confucian Yìxué it represents the conservative Chéng-Zhū (specifically Zhū-aligned) wing, in contrast to the more methodologically innovative work of the same generation by 毛奇齡 Máo Qílíng (the Zhòngshì Yì’s wǔ yì doctrine) or the more kǎozhèng-oriented work of 黃宗羲 Huáng Zōngxī and 黃宗炎 Huáng Zōngyán.
The Sìkù editors’ editorial digression on the private posthumous title is itself historically substantive. The reference to Sīmǎ Guāng’s letter against the Zhāng Zài sī shì attempt — preserved at the head of the Zhāngzǐ quán shū (KR3a0026) — is correctly cited; the editors’ decision to excise Yáng Yǔncháng’s defense reflects a Qiánlóng-court editorial policy of firm disapproval of pupil-initiated posthumous titles. This is a small but important case in the imperial jīngxué-editorial regulation of late-imperial Confucian community practice.
Translations and research
No substantial monograph in Western languages located. For Zhāng’s broader Bóxué hóngcí career see ECCP. The private-posthumous-title issue treated in the Sìkù notice is discussed in studies of late-imperial Chinese funerary and biographical practice (e.g. Patricia Ebrey).
Other points of interest
The Sìkù notice’s lengthy excursus on the sī shì practice — and the editors’ decision to remove Yáng’s defense from the printed work — is one of the more politically substantive editorial interventions in the Yì-class tíyào, and a small case-study in the Qiánlóng court’s regulation of late-imperial Confucian community practice through Sìkù compilation policy.