Lǐ Xūzhōng mìngshū 李虛中命書
Lǐ Xūzhōng’s Fate-Book pseudepigraphically attributed to 鬼谷子 (Guǐgǔzǐ — the legendary Warring-States cosmographer); annotated by 李虛中 (Lǐ Xūzhōng, fl. 806-820 Tang); actually a Sòng-period composition
About the work
A 3-juan foundational treatise of the late-imperial Chinese xīngmìng (astrological-fate) divination tradition, organized around the analysis of the 60 jiǎzǐ (sexagenary cycle) heavenly-trunk / earthly-branch combinations and their interpretation as personal fate-indicators. The work is conventionally regarded as the foundational text of the xīngmìng school but is in fact a Sòng-period composition pseudepigraphically attributed to the Tang official Lǐ Xūzhōng with further-pseudepigraphic attribution of the underlying text to the legendary Warring-States Guǐgǔzǐ.
The Sìkù 提要 articulates the textual-critical case:
(a) Authorship-attribution: Hán Yù’s tomb-inscription for Lǐ Xūzhōng (preserved in the Chānglí wénjí) describes his xīngmìng practice in detail but does not record that he wrote any books — making the post-Sòng attribution of the Lǐ Xūzhōng mìngshū to him doubtful.
(b) Bibliographic absence: the work is not recorded in the Tang Yìwén zhì. First catalog appearance is in the Sòng zhì: Lǐ Xūzhōng mìngshū géjú in 2 juàn. Zhèng Qiáo’s Tōngzhì Yìwén lüè records Lǐ Xūzhōng mìngshù in 1 juàn + Mìngshū bǔyí in 1 juàn. Cháo Gōngwǔ’s Dúshū zhì records 3 juàn. The juàn-count and titles are inconsistent across early catalogs, suggesting unstable transmission.
(c) Internal-textual evidence: the work’s first half “discusses the 60 jiǎzǐ without addressing the birth-person hour earthly-stem” — consistent with Hán Yù’s description of Lǐ Xūzhōng’s actual method (year-month-day only). But the work’s second half “often refers to the four-pillar [system]” — i.e., the four-trunk bāzì method (year-month-day-hour) “whose explanation actually arose under the Sòng”. The work’s two halves are therefore methodologically inconsistent, with the second half betraying its Sòng-period composition.
(d) Other anachronistic features: the work uses Sòng-period official-title nomenclature (zhíguān chēngwèi duō shè Sòngdài zhī shì 職官稱謂多涉宋代之事) — direct evidence of post-Tang composition.
The 提要 hypothesizes the work’s actual genealogy: “Suspected that the Tang generation originally had this book; in Sòng times those discussing star-learning [ xīngxué ] used [their] sayings to slip into the middle [of the original], pseudepigraphically [adding the] Lǐ Xūzhōng annotation of [the] Guǐgǔ [text], in order to deify themselves in their technique”.
Despite the attribution-issues, the Sìkù editors preserve the work because “its arguments are refined-and-correct close-to-principle, mostly obtaining the orthodox-purport of star-and-fate; different from the later illusory-vague-and-recondite [practitioners]“. The Sìkù-recension follows Cháo Gōngwǔ’s 3-juan division and adds explicit annotation-cum-correction (ànyǔ 案語) at points of pseudepigraphic addition to alert readers.
For the parallel pseudepigraphic xīngmìng tradition, see KR3g0034 Yùzhào dìngzhēn jīng (similarly pseudepigraphic). For the principal claimed-author, see 李虛中. For the broader xīngmìng tradition see KR3g0035-KR3g0042.
Tiyao
[Full text in source file. Dated Qiánlóng 46 (1781), ninth month.]