Zhōuyì qiǎn shì 周易淺釋
A Plain Glossing of the Zhōuyì by 潘思榘
About the work
A Qiánlóng-period Yìjīng commentary in four juàn by 潘思榘 Pān Sījǔ (1695–1752) of Yánghú 陽湖, Fújiàn Governor. The work was unfinished at his death — the Qián and Kūn hexagrams have no commentary; only sixty-two of the sixty-four hexagrams are explained; the Wényán, Xìcí, Shuōguà, Xùguà, Záguà are entirely absent. The Tuàn zhuàn and Xiàng zhuàn are appended under the canonical text on the zhùshū model.
The work’s distinctive method: each hexagram is annotated with the source hexagram from which it varies (shí lái 時來, “the time-from-which-it-comes”); the work uses guà biàn 卦變 (hexagram-variation) and hùtǐ 互體 (component-trigram) — Hàn-school techniques — to derive symbol-readings, and from the symbols then derives the canonical meaning. The Sìkù editors describe this as “warp by Hàn-Confucian method, weft by Sòng-men’s meaning” (經以漢儒之法而緯以宋人之義). They note that guà biàn and hùtǐ are both legitimate “one meaning” within the Yì but each of the extreme positions (full rejection or full advocacy) is a failure: Pān’s moderate use of both is therefore reasonable, with “gain-and-loss mutually displayed.”
The work was based on the Tōngzhì táng jīngjiě 通志堂經解’s collection of forty-two Yì commentaries (Sòng-Yuán) which Pān read through and elucidated with his own opinions. Two posthumous postscripts: 沈大成 Shěn Dàchéng of Sōngjiāng; 林迪光 Lín Díguāng of Fútáng. Lín’s postscript records Pān’s saying: “the Tuàn mostly speaks of symbol with variation contained within; the line mostly speaks of variation with symbol contained within. If one does not understand shí lái, one does not know the hexagram’s source; if one does not seek the line-variation, one does not know the hexagram’s destination. Lines encompass everything; the old doctrine was uniformly to discuss them in terms of body, mind, and political affairs, omitting much principle. Better to gloss them at the surface, and the depth too can be penetrated.”
Tiyao
Sìkù tíyào (translated): The Zhōuyì qiǎn shì in four juàn was composed by Pān Sījǔ of our [Qīng] dynasty. Sījǔ, zì Bǔtáng, was a man of Yánghú; Yōngzhèng jiǎchén jìnshì; office to Fújiàn Governor.
This book all takes guà biàn and hùtǐ to seek symbol, and then takes symbol to make clear principle. Each hexagram is annotated as coming from such-and-such hexagram, calling this shí lái. The warp is by Hàn-Confucian method and the weft by Sòng-men’s meaning. Yet guà biàn and hùtǐ are both one meaning within the Yì. To fully abolish both is to be lost to fierceness; to fully take both as principal is to be lost to chiseling. Indeed, gain-and-loss are mutually displayed.
Sījǔ’s making this book originally took the Tōngzhì táng cut Yì jiě forty-two houses, mutually-checking and pulling-out-meaning, with timely his own views to bring out. His application of strength is quite deep. Still missing are the Qián and Kūn hexagrams without notes when he died. Hence this recension’s discussion is only of sixty-two hexagrams. Its Tuàn zhuàn and Xiàng zhuàn use the zhùshū base, attached to the canon and combined-explained. The Wényán, Xìcí, Shuōguà, Xùguà, Záguà are not reached. Apparently those who principal principle mostly bring out the Ten Wings; those who principal symbol and principal number mostly examine and seek hexagram-and-line — his lineage is indeed thus.
After are two postscripts by Shěn Dàchéng of Sōngjiāng and his pupil Lín Díguāng of Fútáng. Díguāng records Sījǔ’s words: “the Tuàn mostly speaks of symbol with variation contained within; the line mostly speaks of variation with symbol contained within. If one does not make clear shí lái, one does not know the hexagram’s source; if one does not seek line-variation, one does not know the hexagram’s destination. Lines have nothing not encompassed; the old doctrine uniformly discussed them as body-mind-political-affairs, leaving out many principles. Not as good as glossing them at the surface, and the depth too can be penetrated.” This in any case suffices to enclose this book’s great import.
Respectfully collated, the ninth month of the forty-fifth year of Qiánlóng (1780). 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 Pān’s mature scholarship through his death in 1752; the bracket here adopts a conservative range. The work was unfinished at his death and was published posthumously with the Qián and Kūn lacunae preserved.
The work is a substantively interesting Qiánlóng-period commentary that combines Hàn-school technical methods (guà biàn, hùtǐ) with Sòng-school doctrinal exposition. The shí lái annotation system (each hexagram tagged with its source hexagram) is methodologically distinctive and reflects a deliberate engagement with 毛奇齡 Máo Qílíng’s KR1a0126 yí yì doctrine and 董守諭 Dǒng Shǒuyù’s KR1a0112 guà biàn kǎo. Pān’s surface-gloss method (“better to gloss at the surface, the depth too will be penetrated”) represents a methodological turn against the late-Míng / early-Qīng tradition of body-mind-political-affairs allegorical reading.
The pairing with the Tōngzhì táng jīngjiě (Pān’s source) is instructive: the work is one of the substantive eighteenth-century engagements with the Jīngjiě’s 42-house corpus, and Pān’s selection-and-evaluation provides documentary value for the Jīngjiě reception history.
The unfinished state is preserved in the Sìkù recension; the editors did not attempt to fill the Qián-Kūn gap or extend the work to the missing Wings.
Translations and research
No substantial monograph in Western languages located. Pān figures occasionally in Qīng Yìxué surveys.
Other points of interest
Pān Sījǔ’s “surface-gloss” methodological commitment (“better to gloss at the surface, the depth too will be penetrated”) is one of the more substantively developed mid-Qiánlóng critiques of the over-allegorical reading tradition. The combination of Hàn-school xiàngshù technique with deliberate exegetical restraint is a distinctive position within mid-Qīng Yìxué.