Zhōuyì wàn cí jí jiě 周易玩辭集解
Collected Glosses on Savoring the Words of the Zhōuyì by 查慎行
About the work
A late-Kāngxī / early-Yōngzhèng Yìjīng commentary in ten juàn by 查慎行 Zhā Shènxíng (1650–1727), the Kāngxī-period poet and 黃宗羲 Huáng Zōngxī’s pupil. Self-preface dated Yōngzhèng jiǎchén 雍正甲辰 = 1724 when Zhā was seventy-five. The work uses the zhùshū 注疏 base text, with the Qián hexagram preserving an editorial note proposing (against the editor’s view) that 胡炳文 Hú Bǐngwén’s Běnyì tōngshì (KR1a0078) edition correctly represents the Běnyì’s original arrangement. Methodologically Zhā firmly rejects the Sòng Yì-chart tradition, with the volume opening with a sequence of programmatic essays:
(1–2) Two essays on the Hétú: holding that the Hétú numbers were not the basis of 伏羲 Fú Xī’s making of the Yì, but rather were used by the sage for milfoil-divination; that “from the Hàn and Táng down, no one had listed [a chart] before the canonical text”; that the Hétú doctrine derives from chènwěi 讖緯 (the Sòng-period 陳摶 Chén Tuán recovery being a re-attribution).
(3) On the horizontal, round, and square diagrams: discussing the principles of shùn nì jiā jiǎn qí ǒu xiāng cuò 順逆加減奇偶相錯.
(4) On guà biàn: holding (with Huáng Zōngxī) that guà biàn is “the Yì of Master 朱熹 Zhū, not the Yì of Confucius.”
(5) On tiān gēn yuè kū 天根月窟: cataloging six earlier doctrines and concluding that the doctrine is Lǎozǐ’s Daoist xìngmìng shuāng xiū 性命雙修 (twin cultivation of nature and life), unrelated to the Yì.
(6) On bā guà xiāng cuò 八卦相錯: that “xiāng cuò is paired-opposition, not flowing-circulation”; that xiāng cuò applies only to four pairs of trigrams.
(7–8) Two essays on hexagram-arrangement: one on the natural sequence of the twelve months, one on yīnyáng rising and falling not going outside Qián and Kūn.
(9–11) Three essays on zhōng yáo 中爻 (middle line) and hùtǐ 互體: following 孔穎達 Kǒng Yǐngdá’s use of the second-and-fifth as middle, and distinguishing proper-substance middle (lines 2 and 5) from component-substance middle (lines 3 and 4 of the derived component-trigram).
(12) On guǎng bā guà 廣八卦 (broad eight-trigram): proposing that the Shuōguà’s symbol-derivations cannot all be explained and that one should “leave the doubtful as doubtful.”
The Sìkù editors describe the methodological essays as “all clear, substantive, and able to break the doubts of outer-learning attribution-attachment.” Their main complaint: the editorial note on Qián claims that the original Běnyì arrangement is no longer visible (因通釋遵之 今原本不復見矣), but Zhā evidently had not seen the 劉謐 Liú Mì old print that the Kāngxī emperor had specially ordered re-cut. The Sìkù editors find this puzzling given Zhā’s diary-lecture access to the imperial library.
Tiyao
Sìkù tíyào (translated, condensed): The Zhōuyì wàn cí jí jiě in ten juàn was composed by Zhā Shènxíng of our [Qīng] dynasty. Shènxíng, zì Chūbái, hào Huǐyú, was a man of Hǎiníng. He was a jìnshì of the guǐwèi year of Kāngxī (1703) and held office as Hànlín Compiler. Shènxíng received instruction from Huáng Zōngxī, hence he was not deceived by chart-and-writing learning. At the head of the volume are two Hé tú shuō essays: one says the numbers of the Hé tú — the sage did not by them make the Yì but by them used the milfoil; from the Hàn and Táng down none has listed [a chart] before the canon; one says the Hé tú arises from chènwěi, with appended evidence that Master Zhū too uses the Hé tú to engender the milfoil-stalks. Next is Héng tú yuán tú fāng tú discussion, on the principles of shùn nì jiā jiǎn qí ǒu xiāng cuò. Next is Guà biàn discussion, holding that guà biàn is Master Zhū’s Yì, not Confucius’s Yì. Next is Tiān gēn yuè kū examination, listing the various commentators’ six doctrines and holding that this is Lǎozǐ’s nature-and-life twin-cultivation learning, with no relation to the Yì. Next is Bā guà xiāng cuò discussion, holding that xiāng cuò is opposition-and-pairing, not flowing-and-running, and further that xiāng cuò is only the eight trigrams paired four-and-four. Next is Qún guà two discussions: one discussing the natural sequence of the twelve months, one discussing yīnyáng rising-and-falling not going outside Qián and Kūn. Next is Zhōng yáo discussion, taking Kǒng Yǐngdá’s use of two and five as correct. Next is Zhōng yáo hù tǐ discussion, holding that proper-substance has two and five as middle; component-substance has three and four as middle, the three-and-four middle being formed by variation. Next is Guǎng bā guà discussion, holding that the Shuōguà’s symbol-takings cannot all be explained, and one should leave doubts as doubts. His words are all clear, substantive, and able to break the doubts of outer-learning attribution-attachment.
The canonical text sequence uses the zhùshū base. Below the unfinished Qián hexagram is an editorial note saying: “according to Hú Yúnfēng’s [Hú Bǐngwén’s] Běnyì tōngshì, Qián and Kūn are from Wényán on, separately a juàn, edited before the Shuōguà. I privately consider that the original Běnyì recension must have been like this, and the Tōngshì follows it. Now the original recension is no longer to be seen” — and so on. Apparently he had not seen Liú Mì’s printed edition. The Shèngzǔ Rénhuáng [Kāngxī] specially commanded that it be re-cut; that Shènxíng, attending the Inner Court, did not see [it] is rather hard to understand. Yet his canon-exposition is in general pure-and-upright, simple-and-clear; among recent Yì-lecturing houses he is especially worth taking.
Respectfully collated, the first 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 Zhā’s late-life scholarship and his 1724 self-preface; the bracket here (1700–1724) covers the period of late-Kāngxī to early-Yōngzhèng work. Zhā died in 1727, three years after the self-preface.
The work is a substantively important early-eighteenth-century Yì commentary that combines Huáng Zōngxī’s kǎozhèng anti-chart program with focused canonical exegesis. Methodologically it stands within the early-Qīng kǎozhèng tradition (in clear inheritance from KR1a0123) but is more accessible — combining the methodological essays at the head with ordinary line-by-line exposition rather than mounting a chart-by-chart historical demonstration as 胡渭 Hú Wèi’s Yìtú míng biàn (KR1a0138) does.
The Sìkù editors’ high praise — “among recent Yì-lecturing houses especially worth taking” — and their inclusion of the work alongside the imperial-orthodox Zhé zhōng and Shù yì makes Zhā Shènxíng one of the kǎozhèng tradition figures the Qiánlóng court was willing to canonize. The Sìkù editors’ specific puzzlement (that Zhā as imperial-court attendant should not have seen the Liú Mì print) is interesting — it suggests the editors are unaware of Zhā’s family disgrace and house arrest in his last years that may have limited his late-life library access.
Translations and research
For Zhā Shènxíng’s broader poetry and the family disgrace see ECCP under “Cha Shen-hsing.” For his Yì-scholarship see Zhū Bóhūi, Yìxué zhéxué shǐ vol. 4. No major Western-language monograph specifically on the Wàn cí jí jiě located.
Other points of interest
The work is one of the cleaner cases of Huáng Zōngxī’s Yìxué lineage continued through a court-Confucian descendant. The combination of methodological essays at the head with running canonical exposition is also a useful structural model — more readable than either the pure methodological treatise (Hú Wèi) or the pure running commentary (李光地 Lǐ Guāngdì’s Guān tuàn). Zhā’s death in family disgrace under the Yōngzhèng emperor (1727) makes his work also a small case in the political history of late-Kāngxī / early-Yōngzhèng court literature.