Yì jiān 易箋
Slips on the Yì by 陳法
About the work
A Yōngzhèng-Qiánlóng-period Yìjīng commentary in eight juàn by 陳法 Chén Fǎ (zì Dìngzhāi 定齋), Kāngxī guǐsì (1713) jìnshì and Daotai of Dàmíng. The work’s main thesis: the Yì speaks exclusively of human affairs; in the Tuàn and line statements there is “no mention of heaven-and-earth, thunder-and-wind, or even of yīnyáng explicitly.” The Sìkù editors note this thesis is overstated (the Tuàn of Zhèn speaks of “thunder shaking a hundred lǐ” — clearly the ZhènLéi symbol; the Tuàn of various hexagrams speaks of “beneficial to cross the great river” — clearly the Kǎnshuǐ symbol). But they find the overall orientation “substantive and free of fragmentariness.”
The work’s two more substantial methodological contributions:
(1) Critique of 來知德 Lái Zhīdé’s cuò zōng doctrine (KR1a0100). Chén argues that the Dàzhuàn’s “cuò zōng qí shù” 錯綜其數 refers to the milfoil-divination process — that one “cuò zōngs the seven-eight-nine-six numbers and thereby fixes the symbols of the various hexagrams”; Lái, by contrast, “cuò zōngs the various hexagrams and fixes their symbols” (i.e. inverts the procedure: starts from the symbol and cuò zōngs through hexagrams), which is to “first cuò zōng their symbols [and hence] cuò zōng their symbols to fix the numbers.” Chén argues this inverts the canonical procedure. He concedes that earlier writers had spoken of guà biàn without changing the actual yīnyáng substance or the upper-and-lower position of the lines, but holds Lái’s cuò zōng extends to inverting the substance and position — “taking Qián as Kūn, taking water as fire, taking upper as lower” — and is therefore methodologically illegitimate.
(2) Fresh treatment of milfoil-divination procedure. Chén holds that the Xìcí’s “guà” 掛 (suspending) refers specifically to suspending one stalk outside the four-pulling, “in order to symbolize the three [powers]” — not as part of the yú gǔ 餘奇 group like the others. The zài lè ér hòu guà 再扐而後掛 phrase therefore implies that “in three changes there is one without guà”; specifically the first change has guà but the second and third changes do not. This produces a procedure where all three changes use four-eight as odd-even (without resort to five-nine), giving a different reckoning from 郭璞 Guō Pú / 朱熹 Zhū Xī’s standard procedure. The Sìkù editors describe Chén’s reading as “fresh” and “preservable as one school’s reading.”
Tiyao
Sìkù tíyào (translated): The Yì jiān in eight juàn was composed by Chén Fǎ of our [Qīng] dynasty. Fǎ, zì Dìngzhāi, was a man of Ānpíng in Guìzhōu. He was a jìnshì of the guǐsì year of Kāngxī (1713) and held office through Daotai of Dàmíng in Zhílì. The book’s great import: the Yì exclusively speaks of human affairs. Hence within the Tuàn and line statements there is never mention of heaven-and-earth, thunder-and-wind, the various symbols, and likewise no mention of yīnyáng. Examination of the Tuàn of Zhèn speaking of “thunder shaking a hundred lǐ” precisely symbolizes the Zhèn léi; the various hexagrams’ Tuàn speaking of “beneficial to cross the great river” precisely symbolizes the Kǎn water. Fǎ’s saying that the Tuàn statement does not mention symbol is not yet entirely fitting. Yet the great import of his position-taking is substantive and not branching.
As to Lái Zhīdé’s taking the fú hexagram as cuò and the inverted-paired hexagram as zōng, Fǎ holds that the Dàzhuàn’s “cuò zōng” refers to milfoil-divination — cuò zōnging the seven-eight-nine-six numbers and thereby fixing the various hexagrams’ symbols. Now to take cuò zōng of the various hexagrams to fix the symbols is to first cuò zōng the symbols themselves; further, to use cuò zōng to discuss number is to cuò zōng the symbols and thereby fix the numbers. The earlier Confucians, although they spoke of guà biàn, did not change their yīnyáng’s firm-and-soft substance, nor invert the upper-lower position. Now to take Qián as Kūn, take water as fire, take upper as lower — disordered-and-buried, and the Yì symbol on the contrary therefrom dies. His distinction is most clearly limpid.
He further discusses the divination method, saying: the zhuàn’s so-called “guà” — to suspend one stalk outside the four-pulling, originally to symbolize the three [powers] — is not what is in the yú gǔ group symbolizing the intercalary. Its “zài lè ér hòu guà” therefore implies “within three changes there is what does not guà.” Now in one change, the initial lè’s guà needs no statement; only the second lè does not guà. Hence it says “zài lè ér hòu guà.” Therefore we know that zài lè refers to the second change and the third change. His doctrine is utterly different from Guō and Zhū. Yet the first change’s guà one and the second-and-after changes’ guà nothing — the guà one stalk does not enter the guī qí group; the three changes therefore all use four-eight as odd-even, not using five-nine. The borrowed symbols and canonical meaning seem to bring out something. Indeed it can be preserved as one explanation.
Respectfully collated, the second month of the forty-sixth year of Qiánlóng (1781). 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 Chén’s mature scholarship after his 1713 jìnshì; the bracket here (1715–1740) is a conservative range. The work is undated internally; the Sìkù notice does not narrow it.
The work is a substantively interesting Yōngzhèng-Qiánlóng Yì commentary that combines an ethical-practical yìli orientation with two methodologically substantive technical interventions: a critique of Lái Zhīdé’s cuò zōng doctrine and a reformulation of the milfoil-divination guà procedure. Both are well-grounded in the canonical text and Sìkù-approved.
Methodologically Chén stands apart from both the imperial-orthodox 李光地 Lǐ Guāngdì school (which he does not invoke) and the contemporaneous Hàn-school Wú pài tradition (惠士奇 Huì Shìqí). His position is recognizably late-Yōngzhèng / early-Qiánlóng provincial Confucian, focused on careful technical readings without commitment to a school program. The Sìkù editors’ calibrated assessment — pointing out the over-reach (the no-symbol-mention thesis) while endorsing the substantive contributions (the cuò zōng critique and the guà reform) — is one of their more nuanced provincial-scholar readings.
Translations and research
No substantial monograph in Western languages located. The work is occasionally cited in technical Chinese-language histories of Yì-divination procedure.
Other points of interest
The work is one of the few Qīng Yì commentaries by a Guìzhōu provincial Confucian, and a small case in the eighteenth-century geographic spread of Yìxué beyond the Yangtze-region centers. The fresh treatment of the guà procedure in milfoil-divination is also one of the more substantive technical contributions in the Qiánlóng-period Yì-corpus.