Yì Hàn xué 易漢學
The Hàn-Learning of the Yì by 惠棟
About the work
The principal Qiánlóng-period reconstruction of Hàn-school Yìjīng learning, in eight juàn, by 惠棟 Huì Dòng (1697–1758), the Wú pài 吳派 master. The work systematically gathers and reconstructs the Yì doctrines of the four major Hàn commentators: 孟喜 Mèng Xǐ (Chángqīng 長卿) — 2 juàn; 虞翻 Yú Fān (Zhòngxiáng 仲翔) — 1 juàn; 京房 Jīng Fáng (Jūnmíng 君明) — 2 juàn; with 干寶 Gàn Bǎo attached; 鄭玄 Zhèng Xuán (Kāngchéng 康成) — 1 juàn; 荀爽 Xún Shuǎng (Címíng 慈明) — 1 juàn. The eighth juàn is Huì’s own elucidation of the Hàn Yì-principle, used to refute the Sòng Hé túLuò shū and xiāntiāntài jí doctrines.
The work’s organizational principle: Yú Fān is placed after Mèng Xǐ on the basis of Yú’s biography (he claimed to be the fifth-generation transmitter of Mèng Xǐ’s Yì); Zhèng Xuán is placed after Jīng Fáng on the basis of the Hòu Hàn shū’s noting that Zhèng was conversant with Jīng’s Yì; Xún Shuǎng is given his own juàn as a representative of the 費直 Fèi Zhí line.
The Sìkù editors give a substantive historiographic discussion of the Hàn Yì-tradition: noting that the post-田王孫 Tián Wángsūn split into 施讐 Shī Chóu / Mèng Xǐ / 梁丘賀 Liáng Qiūhè was already a fragmenting; noting 劉向 Liú Xiàng’s testimony that all Yì-houses originally derived from 田何 Tián Hé with broadly common doctrine and only Jīng Fáng’s was a “deviant party” (異黨); concluding that “the Hàn-learning’s having Mèng-and-Jīng [as separate-traditions] is just like Sòng-learning’s having Chén-and-Shào (陳摶 Chén Tuán and 邵雍 Shào Yōng): both are what is called ‘separately-transmitted Yì-tradition outside [the canonical Yì]’” (易外別傳). The Fèi Zhí line, by contrast, transmitted through 陳元 Chén Yuán, 鄭眾 Zhèng Zhòng, 馬融 Mǎ Róng, Zhèng Xuán down to 王弼 Wáng Bì — the present standard recension. The editors conclude that the work is methodologically substantive enough to be classified in jīng 經 (canon) rather than relegated to zǐbù shùshù 子部術數 (technical-numerology), even though the Mèng / Jīng material is technically of the divinatory tradition.
Tiyao
Sìkù tíyào (translated, condensed): The Yì Hàn xué in eight juàn was composed by Huì Dòng of our [Qīng] dynasty. This compilation traces and examines Hàn-Confucian Yì-learning, gathering threads-of-discussion in order to display the broad outline. Mèng Chángqīng’s Yì in 2 juàn; Yú Zhòngxiáng’s Yì in 1 juàn; Jīng Jūnmíng’s Yì in 2 juàn — Gàn Bǎo’s Yì attached; Zhèng Kāngchéng’s Yì in 1 juàn; Xún Címíng’s Yì in 1 juàn; the final juàn is Dòng’s bringing-out of the Hàn Yì-principle in order to discriminate-and-correct the Hé túLuò shū and xiāntiān tài jí learning.
[Long historiographic discussion of the Hàn Yì-genealogy: Tián Hé → Tián Wángsūn → split into Shī / Mèng / Liáng Qiū lineages; Jiāo Yánshòu’s claim of Mèng Xǐ inheritance disputed by Mèng’s own pupils; Jīng Fáng / Mèng Xǐ relation; Liú Xiàng’s testimony of Tián Hé / Yáng Hé / Dīng Jiāngjūn line vs. Jīng’s deviation; MèngJīng paralleled to ChénShào as “outside the Yì”; Fèi Zhí line through Chén YuánZhèng ZhòngMǎ RóngZhèng Xuán to Wáng Bì.]
The Yì was originally made for milfoil-divination. Hàn-Confucians mostly join it with divinatory-omens; not necessarily fully fitting the methods of [the Duke of] Zhōu and Confucius. Yet at that time the distance from antiquity was not far; necessarily there was something received. Dòng’s collecting-and-extracting bequeathed-hearings, hooking-and-checking, examining-and-verifying — making learners able to glimpse the Hàn-Confucians’ gateway — for the Yì is also not without service.
The Mèng-and-Jīng two houses’ learning ought to be returned to shùshù (technical-numerology). However, the Fèishì [school] is the proper transmission of symbol-and-number; Zhèng’s learning also jointly uses Jīng’s and Fèi’s doctrines; not all may be eyed as chènwěi. Hence we still rank it in jīngbù (canon section).
Respectfully collated, the tenth 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 Huì Dòng’s middle-and-late career through his death in 1758. The bracket here adopts a span from his early forties through his death.
The work is the foundational Qiánlóng-period reconstruction of Hàn-school Yìxué, written in tandem with the Zhōuyì shù (KR1a0155) — where the latter is Huì’s own integrated zhùshū commentary, the Yì Hàn xué is the documentary-historical reconstruction of the source-Hàn-tradition that the Zhōuyì shù draws upon. Together they constitute the principal Wú pài Yìxué corpus.
The Sìkù editors’ classificatory decision — to keep the Mèng / Jīng material in the canonical-classics (jīng 經) section rather than relegating it to the technical-numerology (shùshù 術數) sub-canon, despite acknowledging that strictly the doctrine “ought to be returned to shùshù” — is methodologically significant: it accepts Huì’s reconstruction as a substantive contribution to canonical Yìxué even where the underlying source material is non-canonical. This is one of the more important Qiánlóng-court editorial endorsements of the kǎozhèng school.
The work’s reception was decisive for late-Qing and Republican-period Yìxué. The Mèng / Yú line that Huì reconstructed became the basis for 張惠言 Zhāng Huìyán’s more thorough Yú Fān reconstruction, and through Zhāng for the late-Qing jīnwén school’s Yìxué (廖平 Liào Píng).
Translations and research
The work is one of the most-treated Qing Yìxué texts in modern scholarship. See Benjamin Elman, From Philosophy to Philology (Harvard, 1984; rev. 2001); R. Kent Guy, The Emperor’s Four Treasuries (Harvard, 1987); ECCP under “Hui Tung.” For specialized treatment of the Hàn-school recovery see Zhū Bóhūi, Yìxué zhéxué shǐ vol. 4. Few Western-language monographs treat it specifically; see generally Zhāng Huìyán’s later work and modern Chinese reprints.
Other points of interest
The work is one of the cleanest cases of high-Qing kǎozhèng historiographic methodology applied to canonical exegesis: Huì systematically separates the Hàn-school sources from later Sòng-period attribution, reconstructs the source-tradition through citation-mining, and integrates the result into a coherent historical narrative. The Sìkù editors’ classificatory decision (canon rather than technical-numerology) accepts the historiographic reconstruction’s methodological substance regardless of the source material’s technical-numerology character.