Zhuǎnzhù gǔyīn lüè 轉注古音略
A Concise Old-phonology Handbook on the Principle of Mutual Annotation by 楊愼 (Yáng Shèn, 1488–1559)
About the work
A Míng-period 5-juàn Old-phonology handbook by Yáng Shèn, conceptually subsumed under Yáng’s particular reading of the liùshū category zhuǎnzhù 轉注 (mutual annotation). The author’s preface argues that the xiéyùn practice of Wú Yù 吳棫 (followed by Zhū Xī, who applied it to the Shī and Sāo) is in fact identical with the Six-Book zhuǎnzhù category as expounded in the Bǎoshì 保氏 office of the Zhōulǐ — i.e., Yáng claims that the Shī’s “alternative readings” (xiéyùn) and the zhuǎnzhù of the Six Books are the same thing under different names. The Sìkù tíyào judges this conflation a category-error — xiéyùn (a phonological doctrine, originating with Shěn Zhòng’s Sòng-period Máo Shī yīnyì) and zhuǎnzhù (an orthographic-classificatory category in the Shuōwén jiězì) are unconnected. Yáng’s substantive procedure remains xiéyùn — re-naming it does not change it. The execution-level critique (paralleling Cóngmù): the 釭 graph is glossed in the Shuōwén as 從金工聲, the 窻 as 從穴悤聲 — i.e. 江 reads gōng, 窻 reads cōng, and these are root readings, requiring no zhuǎn. As to specific assignments: Yáng’s 龍 → jiāng re-classification ignores the Yùrén “shànggōng yòng lóng” with Zhèng’s gloss “龍 should be 尨”, and the Zuǒzhuàn “húqiú mángróng” = the Shī’s “húqiú méngróng” — proving 尨 should turn from 龍, not 龍 take 莫江 reverse. Similarly 朋 → dōng: Yáng cites a yìshī “Qiáoqiáo chēchéng…wǒ yǒu péng” but ignores 弓’s Old reading 肱 (attested in Xiǎoróng, Cǎilǜ, Bìgōng, Chǔcí Jiǔgē) — so 弓 turns from 朋, not 朋 read as 蓬. — Yet the citation-base is broad and Gù Yánwǔ 顧炎武’s Tángyùn zhèng KR1j0081 still draws from it.
Tiyao
The Zhuǎnzhù gǔyīn lüè in 5 juàn. Composed by Yáng Shèn of the Míng. The book has the author’s own preface, which argues: Máo Shī and Chǔcí have xiéyùn; that xiéyùn in fact does not transcend the Bǎoshì zhuǎnzhù of the Zhōulǐ; the Yì jīng shū says “Bēn has seven sounds” — first to set out the principle; Sòng Wú Cáilǎo’s Yùn bǔ finally gave a finished book on it. Scholars therefore knew that xiéyùn is xiéyùn and zhuǎnzhù is zhuǎnzhù — like knowing that two-and-five make a thing, but not knowing they make ten. — Examining: the xiéyùn doctrine begins with Shěn Zhòng’s Máo Shī yīnyì (cited in the Jīngdiǎn shìwén); thereafter Yán Shīgǔ in his Hànshū zhù, Lǐ Shàn in his Wénxuǎn zhù both follow it. Later writers’ use of xiéyùn descends from this — but it has no connection whatever with the Six-Book zhuǎnzhù. Yáng’s book continues to use xiéyùn practice but transfers its name to zhuǎnzhù — like cháosānmùsì changed to cháosìmùsān (i.e. a re-arrangement that does not alter the substance). For example, the jiāng 江 rhyme’s 釭 — Shuōwén “從金工聲”; 窻 — Shuōwén “從穴悤聲” — i.e., 江 reads 工, 窻 reads 悤, are root readings: nothing is “turned”; on what does the “annotation” operate? — Likewise within Yáng’s book: under dōng 冬 the 龍 graph, citing the Zhōulǐ “lónglè zásè”, he says 龍 should turn into the jiāng 江 rhyme; not knowing the Yùrén “shànggōng yòng lóng” with Zhèngsīnóng’s gloss “龍 should be 尨”, and Zuǒzhuàn “húqiú mángróng” = Shī’s “húqiú méngróng” — i.e., 尨 turns from 龍, 龍 does not take mòjiāng reverse. — Likewise under zhēng 蒸 the 朋 graph, citing the yìshī “Qiáoqiáo chēchéng, zhāo wǒ yǐ gōng, qǐ bù yù wǎng, wèi wǒ yǒu péng”, he says 朋 should turn into the dōng 東 rhyme; not knowing 弓’s Old reading is 肱 — attested in Xiǎoróng, Cǎilǜ, Bìgōng, Chǔcí Jiǔgē — so 弓 turns from 朋, 朋 does not read 蓬. — All such cases come from missing the foundations of Old phonology. — Yet the citation-base is broad enough that some material remains useful for evidence: hence Gù Yánwǔ’s Tángyùn zhèng still draws from it. Presented Qiánlóng 46 / 10 (1781). General Editors Jì Yún, Lù Xīxióng, Sūn Shìyì; Chief Collator Lù Fèichí.
Abstract
The Zhuǎnzhù gǔyīn lüè is one of Yáng Shèn’s set of Old-phonology handbooks, distinguished by its theoretical argument that xiéyùn is the zhuǎnzhù of the Six Books. The Sìkù tíyào dismisses this conflation as terminological substitution rather than substantive innovation — Yáng’s actual procedure remains the xiéyùn practice of Wú Yù, with the same execution-level errors. Nonetheless the book is preserved by the Sìkù on the grounds that its citation-base remains useful and that Gù Yánwǔ 顧炎武 (Tángyùn zhèng KR1j0081) continued to draw from it. Date bracket follows Yáng Shèn’s lifedates.
Translations and research
- Pulleyblank, Edwin G. 1962. The Consonantal System of Old Chinese. — Treats Yáng Shèn’s place in the xié-yùn / gǔ-yīn-xué trajectory.
- Wáng Lì 王力. 1985. Hàn-yǔ yǔ-yīn shǐ.
Other points of interest
The Sìkù tíyào’s formal point — that Yáng’s identification of xiéyùn with the Six-Book zhuǎnzhù is a category error — is a useful Qīng-period clarification of two distinct domains (phonological reading-substitution vs. orthographic classification) that had been muddled in the SòngMíng tradition.