Zhōuyì guān tuàn 周易觀彖
Observing the Tuàn of the Zhōuyì by 李光地
About the work
A pre-Zhé zhōng Yìjīng commentary in twelve juàn by 李光地 Lǐ Guāngdì (1642–1718), composed before the imperial Yù zuàn Zhōuyì zhé zhōng (KR1a0117) project of 1713–1715. Although in the Zhé zhōng commission Lǐ requested and obtained imperial permission to use 朱熹 Zhū Xī’s gǔ Yì (古易) recension, the Guān tuàn — composed earlier — uses the standard 王弼 Wáng Bì zhùshū 注疏 base text. The title “guān tuàn” derives from the Xìcí phrase zhī zhě guān qí tuàn cí zé sī guò bàn yǐ 知者觀其彖辭則思過半矣 (“if the knowing one observes its Tuàn statement, his thought has more than half-attained”) — Lǐ frames the work as a sustained meditation on the integrative role of the Tuàn statements in Yì-reading.
The work brings out Yì-principle, supplemented by symbol but with number deemphasized — Lǐ holds 邵雍 Shào Yōng’s numerology to be a “side-transmission outside the Yì” (易外别傳). On most major textual-philological cruxes, Lǐ rejects standard Sòng-period proposed emendations: he does not delete the apparent doublet zhòng wén in Qián 9/4’s zhòng gāng ér bù zhōng 重剛而不中; he does not follow the Wèi shū in reading Kūn Initial Six’s lǚ shuāng jiān bīng 履霜堅冰 as merely lǚ shuāng 履霜; he does not insert the character lì 利 into Kūn’s hòu dé zhǔ ér yǒu cháng 後得主而有常 (against 程頤 Chéng Yí’s Yìchuán); he does not gloss gài yán shùn yě 蓋言順也 with shèn 慎 (taking shùn in its plain sense); etc. The Sìkù editors approve this textual conservatism as continuing Hàn-Confucian jiān shǒu 篤守 (firm preservation) of the canonical text — even where it diverges from Chéng-Zhū tradition.
The Sìkù editors do correct one Lǐ proposal: Lǐ’s claim that zhū hóu zhī lǜ 諸侯之慮 should read hóu zhī 侯之 as a fǎn qiè 反切 spelling of zhū 諸 (and that the doublet should be deleted) is rejected, since fǎn qiè notation only began with 孫炎 Sūn Yán of the Sānguó period and could not have been embedded in pre-imperial canonical text.
Tiyao
Sìkù tíyào (translated, condensed): The Zhōuyì guān tuàn in twelve juàn was composed by Lǐ Guāngdì of our [Qīng] dynasty. Guāngdì had once received imperial command to compile the Zhōuyì zhé zhōng, requesting to restore Master Zhū’s old base text. This compilation, however, still uses the zhùshū base text — apparently the book was completed earlier.
His yǔlù and the Róng cūn quán jí 榕村全集 records reveal substantial elucidation of the prior-heaven diagrams; in this compilation only the Shuōguà’s Tiāndì dìngwèi 天地定位 chapter draws this in by attached citation, and even there does not exhaust the doctrine. The rest is all bringing out Yì-principle with confirmation by symbol, while number is slighted — apparently he too holds that Master Shào’s learning is a side-transmission outside the Yì.
His gloss on the Xìcí’s “if the knowing one observes its Tuàn statement, his thought has more than half-attained” says: “the Tuàn statement may directly use the line meaning, or may communicate the time-fitting and use the line’s fortune-and-misfortune as the standard for decision; hence by this observing, what is hit is not far. Only by combining beginning and end as substance, the time-and-thing cannot escape” — and so on. The name “guān tuàn” all derives from this.
His gloss on Qián 9/4’s zhòng gāng ér bù zhōng does not take the doublet zhòng as superfluous text. His gloss on Kūn Initial Six’s lǚ shuāng jiān bīng 履霜堅冰 (treading on frost — solid ice) does not follow the Wèi shū’s reading “Initial Six: treading on frost” [omitting jiān bīng]. His gloss on Kūn’s hòu dé zhǔ ér yǒu cháng (later getting a master and having constancy) does not follow the Chéng zhuàn’s adding the character lì 利 (beneficial). His gloss on gài yán shùn yě 蓋言順也 does not take shùn as shèn 慎 (cautious). Together with bǐ jí yě 比吉也, bǐ zhī fěi rén 比之匪人, Tóngrén yuē 同人曰, xiǎo lì yǒu yōu wǎng 小利有攸往, tiān wén yě 天文也, Zhèn jīng bǎi lǐ 震驚百里 jīng yuǎn ér jù ěr yě 驚遠而懼邇也, Jiàn zhī jìn yě 漸之進也, Shàng Jiǔ Hóng jiàn yú lù 上九鴻漸於陸, and yǔ dì zhī yí 與地之宜 — all do not follow the Chéng zhuàn and Běnyì doctrine of misplaced-omitted text. Only on the Hàn shū lǜ lì zhì 漢書律厯志’s relocation of the twenty characters from tiān yī dì èr 天一地二, he follows the Chéng zhuàn; and on néng yán zhū hóu zhī lǜ 能研諸侯之慮 with hóu zhī 侯之 as superfluous text, he follows the Běnyì. (Editorial correction: Guāngdì says zhū is the fǎn qiè combination of hóu and zhī, imagining the ancient classic had marginal-notation that was reverse-cut and erroneously enlarged. He does not realize that fǎn qiè began with Sūn Yán; the ancient classic could not have notation-character cuts. This explanation is gravely in error; we add the correction here.)
Apparently from revering-and-trusting the ancient canon, he dares not displace-and-disorder it — still having the bequest of Hàn-Confucian firm-preservation. Although the great import has notable divergence from Chéng-Zhū houses, principle is sufficient to be mutually clarifying — there is variance but no back-touching.
Respectfully collated, the tenth 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 Lǐ’s mature scholarship preceding the Zhé zhōng commission of 1713; the bracket here (1685–1715) covers his pre-Zhé zhōng mature Yì-thinking. The Sìkù editors note explicitly that the Guān tuàn was completed before the Zhé zhōng (and so used the zhùshū base text rather than the gǔ Yì recension Lǐ would later prefer).
The work is the principal pre-Zhé zhōng personal Yì-statement of Lǐ Guāngdì, complementing the Tōng lùn (KR1a0132) which is the synthetic essay-form treatment, and the Zhé zhōng (KR1a0117) which is the institutional imperial compilation. Together the three constitute Lǐ’s full Yì-corpus.
The textual-conservatism of the Guān tuàn — refusing most Sòng-proposed emendations and preserving the canonical text against displacement — places Lǐ unusually close to the Hàn-school jiān shǒu tradition that the Sìkù editors elsewhere associate with 陳士元 Chén Shìyuán’s KR1a0099 and 王夫之 Wáng Fūzhī’s KR1a0120 kǎozhèng line. The Sìkù editors’ explicit linkage — “still having the bequest of Hàn-Confucian firm-preservation” — is a substantive endorsement of Lǐ’s textual method.
The Sìkù editors’ minor kǎozhèng correction (against Lǐ’s fǎn qiè misattribution) is a representative example of the editors’ willingness to discipline even the most authoritative living-tradition figures on technical philological points. 孫炎 Sūn Yán’s invention of fǎn qiè in the Sānguó (Three Kingdoms) period is correctly cited.
Translations and research
No substantial monograph in Western languages located. For Lǐ Guāngdì’s broader Yìxué see Ng On-cho’s work and the standard Lǐ Guāngdì bibliography in ECCP.
Other points of interest
The work is one of the cleaner cases of the Sìkù editors’ explicit periodization within an author’s own corpus — distinguishing the Guān tuàn (pre-Zhé zhōng, zhùshū base text) from the Zhé zhōng (post-1713, gǔ Yì recension). The fǎn qiè misattribution correction — based on Sūn Yán’s documented invention of the practice — is also a small case study in Qīng kǎozhèng historical-philology applied as critical apparatus on a recent Confucian master.