Yì yì shù xìn 易翼述信
Faithfully Recital of the Wings of the Yì by 王又樸
About the work
A mid-Qiánlóng Yìjīng commentary in twelve juàn by 王又樸 Wáng Yòupǔ (1681–1760) of Tiānjīn. The work uses the 王弼 Wáng Bì base-text arrangement (juàn 1 begins with reading-method, juàn 12 ends with miscellaneous discussions); methodologically the work takes the Xiàng zhuàn, Tuàn zhuàn, Wényán, and other Wings as authoritative interpretive guides for the canonical scripture. The title shù xìn — “transmitted in faith” — programmatically signals Wáng’s commitment to the Wings as the proper key to canonical meaning, and his rejection of 朱熹 Zhū Xī’s Běnyì doctrine that “Confucius’s saying [the Wings] cannot simply be taken as King Wén’s saying [the canonical Tuàn].”
The work draws on a wide range of commentators, with 李光地 Lǐ Guāngdì’s readings the most numerous, and selective divergence from Zhū Xī’s Běnyì throughout. The Sìkù editors single out two examples of methodological excess: (1) Wáng’s gloss on Qián / dà míng zhōng shǐ — that the sage in drawing the six yáng strokes had already provided “great-bright indication” — is too forced; (2) Wáng’s gloss on Kūn Initial Six (citing 來知德 Lái Zhīdé) that “yáng moves and yīn follows in motion” is a strained derivation through the Fù hexagram that Kūn Initial Six varies into. The editors’ general diagnosis: Wáng’s commitment to deriving every line through line-variation produces “fragmentary and broken” readings.
The work’s positive contributions: (1) The HétúLuòshū and xiāntiānhòutiān doctrines are not given as charts at the head but as supplementary discussions in the miscellaneous-discussions appendix — methodologically clear and frank. (2) Juàn 1’s discussions of shí 時 (time), wèi 位 (position), dé 德 (virtue), dàxiǎo 大小 (great-small), yìng 應 (resonance), bǐ 比 (closeness), zhǔ yáo 主爻 (master-line) all closely follow the imperial Yù zuàn Zhōuyì zhé zhōng (KR1a0117) and bring out its meanings clearly.
Tiyao
Sìkù tíyào (translated, condensed): The Yì yì shù xìn in twelve juàn was composed by Wáng Yòupǔ of our [Qīng] dynasty. Yòupǔ, zì Jièshān, was a man of Tiānjīn; Yōngzhèng guǐmǎo jìnshì; converted to shù jí shì; office to Sub-Prefect of Lúzhōu.
This compilation follows the canon-and-zhuàn sequence entirely after the Wáng Bì old base, prefixed by reading-method, ending with collected various Confucians’ miscellaneous discussions. The great import: exclusively uses the Xiàng, Tuàn, Wényán, the various zhuàn to gloss the canonical meaning. He himself says he “firmly trusts the Ten Wings and recites them as a book”; hence he names it Yì yì shù xìn — Faithfully Reciting the Wings of the Yì. He takes Master Zhū’s “[the saying] cannot simply be taken as King Wén’s saying” formulation as wrong.
His bringing-out of principle-treasures, the various houses cited — Lǐ Guāngdì’s words alone are most numerous; from the Běnyì he also has occasional variance. Apparently see-the-wise see-the-benevolent each illuminate one meaning; the Yì way is broad-and-great, nothing not encompassed; one cannot necessarily hold one explanation to limit the world’s myriad ages. What Yòupǔ discusses is in any case not without basis.
As to his glossing of each hexagram — like glossing Qián’s dà míng zhōng shǐ saying that the sage in drawing this six-yáng-line and still naming it as the time of Qián had already greatly given clear indication; glossing Kūn Initial Six saying yáng moves and yīn follows in motion, and citing Lái Zhīdé to confirm — these are all lost to forcing. Apparently his intention is that every line necessarily takes its variation-breath: Kūn Initial Six varies to Fù, hence the doctrine establishes thus. He does not realize that the Zhōuyì indeed both takes variation-symbol; yet if every line necessarily takes the variation-substance to gloss, then it will become tangled-and-broken, leading to limitation-and-impassability — in the end fails to escape self-engendered brambles.
Only on his not listing the HétúLuòshū and prior-heaven and posterior-heaven as charts but laying out their discussions at the end of the miscellaneous-discussions: the example is clear-and-concise, comparatively having insight. Further, juàn 1’s shí, wèi, dé, dàxiǎo, yìng, bǐ, zhǔ yáo, the various discussions — all are able to faithfully follow the Imperial Compiled Zhōuyì zhé zhōng’s import and extend-and-elucidate its meaning. The words and meaning are clear-and-fluid; there is also quite a bit worth taking.
Respectfully collated, the seventh 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 Wáng’s mature scholarship after his 1723 jìnshì. Wáng’s own self-preface (preserved in the source) records that he began the work seriously only in Qiánlóng dīngsì 乾隆丁巳 = 1737 when he was fifty-seven, after his first abortive engagement with Zhū Xī’s Běnyì in his youth had left him unable to reconcile Zhū’s “Wings ≠ canonical meaning” doctrine with what he took to be the obvious continuity of Confucius’s reading with the canonical Tuàn. The bracket here therefore runs from 1737 through Wáng’s death in 1760.
The work is one of the principal mid-Qiánlóng continuations of the imperial Zhé zhōng tradition: methodologically aligned with Lǐ Guāngdì on the foundational principles (shí-wèi-dé analysis, etc.) but more decisive in the Wings-as-authority commitment. Together with KR1a0150 (沈起元 Shěn Qǐyuán) it makes the mid-Qiánlóng decade one of the most prolific periods for the Confucian-Wing-as-authority tradition. Methodologically the two share the same general program but diverge on details: Shěn deletes the chart-tradition entirely; Wáng preserves it as supplementary appendix.
The Sìkù editors’ specific complaints (the over-reliance on line-variation derivation; the strained gloss on Kūn Initial Six citing Lái Zhīdé) reflect the editors’ general mid-Qiánlóng discomfort with Lái Zhīdé’s xiàngshù method; the editors’ positive points reinforce the Lǐ Guāngdì-line orthodoxy.
Translations and research
No substantial monograph in Western languages located.
Other points of interest
The work’s compositional history (Wáng’s youthful abandonment of Zhū Xī’s Běnyì doctrine, then late-life return to the Yì with a Wings-as-authority program) is one of the cleaner cases of late-imperial Confucian Yì-conversion narratives. The methodological commitment is also a small case in the Qiánlóng-period reception of Zhū Xī: respectful but willing to set aside specific doctrines that conflict with the perceived intent of the canonical Wings.