聞分館君 Ask BunKanKun

洪範正論

9 min read

Text ID
KR1b0054
Date
1690–1710
Dynasty
清

Hóng fàn zhèng lùn 洪範正論

Authoritative Discourse on the “Great Plan” by 胡渭 (zhuàn 撰)

About the work

A 5-juǎn early-Qīng monograph on the Hóng fàn 洪範 chapter of the Shàngshū by Hú Wèi 胡渭 (1633–1714), the companion volume to his much more famous Yǔ gòng zhuīzhǐ (KR1b0053). Hú Wèi’s master-thesis: Yǔ’s water-control project recorded in the Yǔ gòng was grounded in the Nine Categories of the Hóng fàn — Yǔ’s failed predecessor Gǔn 鯀 disrupted the Nine Categories; Yǔ then succeeded Gǔn; “Heaven thereupon bestowed [the categories] on Yǔ” — therefore the Hóng fàn is tǐ 體 (essence) and the Yǔ gòng is yòng 用 (use), and the two together unfold the doctrine of “revering-and-following the heavenly Way” (fèng ruò tiān dào 奉若天道). The work attacks three principal errors of received Hóng fàn exegesis: (1) the Hàn-Confucian zāi yì 災異 (disaster-and-anomaly) tradition’s reductive linkage of the Five Phases to dynastic disasters (a tradition Hú Wèi categorizes as functionally equivalent to the chèn wěi 讖緯 apocrypha); (2) the Sòng-Confucian Hé tú / Luò shū number-cosmology, which converted the canonical text into geometric diagrams (Liú Mù 劉牧, Cài Jìtōng 蔡季通 / Cài Yuándìng); (3) the slip-displacement readings of Wáng Bǎi, Hú Yīguì 胡一桂, and others.

The work is one of the principal early-Qīng kǎojù assaults on Sòng Hóng fàn number-cosmology, complementing Hú Wèi’s parallel attack on Sòng Yìjīng number-cosmology in the Yì tú míng biàn 易圖明辨. Together with that work and the Yǔ gòng zhuīzhǐ, the Hóng fàn zhèng lùn completes Hú Wèi’s three-part canonical-philological project of clearing away Sòng-period speculative apparatus and recovering the canonical text on rigorous evidentiary grounds.

Tiyao

Imperially Authorized Sìkù Quánshū. [Classics, division 2.] Hóng fàn zhèng lùn. [Books-class.]

Précis. Your servants etc. respectfully submit: the Hóng fàn zhèng lùn in five juǎn — by Hú Wèi of our State. Wèi has the Yǔ gòng zhuīzhǐ, already entered in our catalog. The principal aim of this book is: that Yǔ’s water-control was rooted in the Nine Categories. Therefore [the Hóng fàn] first speaks of “Gǔn dammed up the great waters”; then speaks of “Yǔ then succeeded and rose”; finally speaks of “Heaven thereupon bestowed [the Hóng fàn] on Yǔ.” So the Hóng fàn is tǐ and the Yǔ gòng is yòng; mutually elaborated, the meaning becomes manifest. But the great thrust [of the work] is to elucidate the principle of revering-and-following the heavenly Way — not [the same as] Zhèng Qiáo’s [Yǔ gòng and Hóng fàn mutually exterior-and-interior] argument that takes the order of the Nine Provinces and matches them with the Five Phases.

His refutation of earlier readings: he says that the Hàn writers focused exclusively on disasters-and-auspicious-omens, extending [these] into the Five Phases — straining and forcing in a manner equivalent to the chèn wěi prophecies; this is error one. He says that the original text of the Luò shū is precisely the twelve characters “wǔ xíng wǔ shì… wǔ fú liù jí” 五行五事至五福六極; the [further] eighteen characters “wéi jìng yòng nóng yòng” etc. were added by Yǔ, with the same import as the Dà Yǔ mó’s “the danger and subtlety, the refining and unification, the holding to the mean” xīn fǎ. The “first-second… ninth” sequencing is simply ordinal-labeling; it is not part of the tortoise-pattern. The tortoise has markings like wood and stone — like the markings on the hand of the Lǔ wife’s son Yǒu. The Sòng Confucians invented black-and-white dots, square-and-round shapes, the 9-and-10 number positions, transforming the Shū into a tú; even so far as 9-numbers and 10-numbers, with Liú Mù and Cài Jìtōng repeatedly redefining — this is error two. Further: the Hóng fàn originally had no displaced slips, but Wáng Bǎi, Hú Yīguì and others emended it at will — this is error three.

In all these [refutations] he strikes at the heart of the [old] errors. Probably Wèi’s classical-scholarship is deep and rooted, with foundation in learning; therefore his arguments uniformly track on principle. The Hàn Confucians’ forcing-arguments and the Sòng Confucians’ altering-discourses he can sweep clean away. Respectfully submitted, Qiánlóng 44 / 1779, eighth month.

— Director-General, Jì Yún 紀昀, Lù Xīxióng 陸錫熊, Sūn Shìyì 孫士毅. — Director of Final Collation, Lù Fèichí 陸費墀.

Abstract

The Hóng fàn zhèng lùn is the companion volume to Hú Wèi’s Yǔ gòng zhuīzhǐ (KR1b0053), and the principal early-Qīng kǎojù monograph on the Hóng fàn 洪範. Composed during Hú Wèi’s late-Kāngxī productive period — defensibly bracketed 1690–1710 — and submitted to the Sìkù in Qiánlóng 44 / 1779.

The work’s master-thesis is the Hóng fàn / Yǔ gòng tǐyòng 體用 (“essence and use”) relationship: Yǔ’s water-control project recorded in the Yǔ gòng derives its underlying organizational principle from the Nine Categories of the Hóng fàn. Hú Wèi positions this thesis explicitly against Zhèng Qiáo’s 鄭樵 (1104–1162) Sòng-period claim that the Yǔ gòng and Hóng fàn are mutually biǎo lǐ 表裏 (exterior-interior) with the Nine Provinces matched to the Five Phases — a numerological pairing that Hú Wèi rejects. Hú Wèi’s reading is structural-functional rather than numerological.

The work’s three principal refutations — the Hàn zāi yì tradition; the Sòng Hé tú / Luò shū number-cosmology; and the slip-displacement re-readings — define the early-Qīng kǎojù program against received Hóng fàn exegesis.

(1) The Hàn refutation: Hú Wèi categorizes the entire Hàn-period zāi yì tradition (Liú Xiàng 劉向, Liú Xīn 劉歆, Bān Gù 班固’s Hànshū wǔ xíng zhì, etc.) as functionally equivalent to the chèn wěi prophecies — “forced and contorted, sharing the same illness” — and refuses to accept the Hóng fàn as a manual for predicting dynastic catastrophes from natural anomalies.

(2) The Sòng refutation: Hú Wèi’s most ambitious philological argument is the analysis of the Luò shū canonical text. He claims that the original Luò shū preserved in the Hóng fàn is just the 12-character phrase “wǔ xíng wǔ shì zhì wǔ fú liù jí” 五行五事至五福六極 (the names of the Nine Categories’ content); the further 18-character formula “wéi jìng yòng nóng yòng” etc. was added by Yǔ in parallel with the Dà Yǔ mó’s 16-character xīn fǎ (rén xīn wéi wēi, dào xīn wéi wéi, wéi jīng wéi yī, yǔn zhí jué zhōng). The numerical-ordinal “chū yī, cì èr… cì jiǔ” 初一次二…次九 is just a labeling system, not part of the tortoise-shell pattern. Tortoise-shell patterns, like wood-grain or hand-marks, are non-systematic; the Sòng-period black-and-white dots and square-circle 9 / 10 number-position diagrams of Liú Mù 劉牧 and Cài Yuándìng 蔡元定 (zì Cài Jìtōng) are speculative reconstructions, not historical reality.

(3) The slip-displacement refutation: Hú Wèi rejects the Wáng Bǎi 王柏, Hú Yīguì 胡一桂 (and implicitly, Wáng Fūzhī 王夫之 in KR1b0047, Huáng Dàozhōu 黃道周 in KR1b0044) tradition of conjecturing displaced slips and emending the canonical text accordingly. The Hóng fàn canonical text is to be read as transmitted, not reorganized.

The Sìkù tíyào’s endorsement is decisive — “all in all he strikes at the heart of the [old] errors” — and identifies the work as a clean kǎojù triumph over both Hàn and Sòng received traditions. The work is methodologically a companion to Hú Wèi’s Yì tú míng biàn (which performs the same kind of demolition on the Sòng Yìjīng number-cosmology), and constitutes Hú Wèi’s joint program against the Sòng xīn shù 心術 / xiàng shù 象數 / number-cosmology tradition that had been institutionally entrenched since Cài Yuándìng and Cài Shěn.

Translations and research

No substantial Western-language translation of the Hóng fàn zhèng lùn is known. For the Hóng fàn tradition broadly the standard reference is Michael Nylan, The Shifting Center: The Original “Great Plan” and Later Readings (Nettetal: Steyler Verlag, 1992). For Hú Wèi’s broader kǎojù program see Benjamin A. Elman, From Philosophy to Philology (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Council on East Asian Studies, 1984), which treats the Hóng fàn zhèng lùn alongside the Yì tú míng biàn as the two principal demolitions of Sòng xiàng shù 象數 cosmology. For the Hàn zāi yì tradition Hú Wèi attacks see Wáng Bǎochuān 汪寶川, Hàn dài Shàngshū xué yánjiū 漢代尚書學研究 (Beijing: Renmin University Ph.D. dissertation, 2009).

Other points of interest

The work’s three-error refutation structure is methodologically clean: each error is identified, attributed, and refuted with internal-textual evidence. The Luò shū analysis — which separates the canonical Hóng fàn phrasing from the speculative Hé tú / Luò shū diagram tradition — is one of the cleanest kǎojù arguments in the early-Qīng tradition, and parallels Hú Wèi’s parallel demolition of the Sòng Yìjīng diagram tradition in the Yì tú míng biàn.

The xīn fǎ parallelism — Hú Wèi’s claim that Yǔ’s added 18 characters in the Hóng fàn parallel the Dà Yǔ mó 16-character formula in spirit — is methodologically interesting. It suggests that Hú Wèi accepted the canonical-text status of the Dà Yǔ mó’s 16-character formula even though Yán Ruòqú’s Shàngshū gǔwén shū zhèng (KR1b0048) — composed in roughly the same years — was simultaneously demolishing the entire Gǔwén Shàngshū (within which the Dà Yǔ mó sits). Hú Wèi and Yán Ruòqú were close colleagues (both worked under Xú Qiánxué’s Yītǒng zhì commission); the xīn fǎ parallelism in the Zhèng lùn indicates that Hú Wèi was not yet fully aligned with Yán Ruòqú’s anti-Gǔwén position when this work was composed.

The work’s tǐyòng 體用 framing of the Hóng fàn / Yǔ gòng relationship is distinctive: it treats the Hóng fàn as the structural-organizational principle whose application generates the Yǔ gòng’s administrative geography. This reading anticipates twentieth-century structuralist readings of the Shàngshū canon as an integrated political-cosmological architecture.

Graph View

Backlinks