Record of Daily Knowledge and Collected Poems and Essays

Selections

Yanwu Gu, Ian Johnston

• Publisher: Columbia University Press
• Year: 2016
• ISBN:
  9780231542678
• Topic: Letteratura
• Subtopic: Collezioni letterarie asiatiche

Gu Yanwu pioneered the late-Ming and early Qing-era practice of Han Learning, or Evidential Learning, favoring practical over theoretical approaches to knowledge. He strongly encouraged scholars to return to the simple, ethical precepts of early Confucianism, and in his best-known work, Rizhi lu ( Record of Daily Knowledge ), he applied this paradigm to literature, government, economics, history, education, and philology. This volume includes translations of selected essays from Rizhi lu and Gu Yanwu's Shiwen Ji ( Collected Poems and Essays ), along with an introduction explaining the personal and political dimensions of the scholar's work.

Gu Yanwu wrote the essays and poems featured in this volume while traveling across China during the decades immediately after the fall of the Ming Dynasty. They merge personal observation with rich articulations of Confucian principles and are, as Gu said, "not old coin but copper dug from the hills." Like many of his contemporaries, Gu Yanwu believed the Ming Dynasty had suffered from an overconcentration of power in its central government and recommended decentralizing authority while strengthening provincial self-government. In his introduction, Ian Johnston recounts Gu Yanwu's personal history and reviews his published works, along with their scholarly reception. Annotations accompany his translations, and a special essay on feudalism by Tang Dynasty poet and scholar Liu Zongyuan (773–819) provides insight into Gu Yanwu's later work on the subject.

I

ESSAYS FROM THE RECORD OF DAILY KNOWLEDGE (RIZHI LU—RZL)

1

RZL 1–7

THE CLASSICS

Seven of the thirty-two sections of the RZL in the Huang Rucheng edition are devoted to the classics: one each to the Changes, Documents, Odes, Spring and Autumn Annals and its three early commentaries, two to the San Li (Yi Li, Zhou Li, and Li Ji), and one to the Lunyu (Analects) and Mencius. In the Yuanchaoben edition these same essays plus two additional ones are divided into nine sections. There are in all 370 (372) essays. What follows is a summary of each of the seven sections accompanied by one or more essays from that section.

Section 1, the Changes: There are fifty-three essays on the Zhou Yi 周易 (or Yi Jing 易經, Changes). The first five are of a general nature: 1.1 considers the origin of the work; 1.2 is a brief comment on King Wen’s role in its creation; 1.3 is about Zhu Xi’s interpretation in his work Zhou Yi Benyi; 1.4 compares the interpretations of Confucius and the later scholars Xun Shuang and Yu Fan; and 1.5 is about changes in the diagrams. Essays 1.6–37 are essentially comments on specific diagrams. Essays 1.38–44 pertain to the “Great Commentary” (Da Zhuan 大傳 or Xi Ci 繫辭). Essays 1.45–46 are about, respectively, the contrast of opposites in the work and its arrangement and function with specific reference to the term ni shu 逆數. Essays 1.47–49 concern the three “Discussions on the Trigrams”—shuo gua 說卦, xu gua 序卦, and za gua 雜卦. The final four essays are of a more general nature: 1.50 is about Su Shi’s comments on phrases for diagrams 35 and 36; 1.51 is a brief consideration of Confucius’s comments on the work; 1.52 discusses aspects of the arrangement of lines and diagrams; and 1.53 is a long historical discussion of divination using stalks and plants.

1.1 THE THREE CHANGES

Comment: The issue here is the origin and naming of the Book of Changes (for a discussion in English, see the translation of the work by I. K. Shchutskii, Researches on the I Ching [London: Routledge, 1980], particularly 56–128). In essence, the Lian Shan and Gui Zang, neither of which is extant, are traditionally linked with, respectively, Fu Xi and the Xia dynasty and Huang Di and the Shang dynasty.

Now, the Master [Confucius] did say Bao Xi Shi [Fu Xi]¹ was the first to draw the eight diagrams, but he did not say he wrote the Changes. And he said, “Did the Changes not have its origin in Middle Antiquity?”² He also said, “Did it not arise during the declining years of the Yin and the burgeoning virtue of the Zhou, at the time of the matter between Kings Wen and Zhou?”³ This indicates the words written by King Wen were first given the name Changes. Moreover, the Grand Diviner of the Zhou Guan had charge of the rules for the three Changes: the first was called Lian Shan, the second, Gui Zang, and the third, Zhou Yi. That the Lian Shan and the Gui Zang were not the Changes and yet three Changes were spoken of was because men of later times used the term Changes to name them. It is like the Mozi, which speaks of the Spring and Autumn Annals of Zhou, Yan, Song, and Qi.⁴ That the histories of Zhou, Yan, Song, and Qi were certainly not all Spring and Autumn Annals and yet were called Spring and Autumn Annals was because the name of the Lu history was used to name them.

In the Zuo Zhuan, for the fifteenth year of Duke Xi [644 B.C.E.], it is said that a battle was fought in Han, at which the diviner Tu Fu, using the milfoil, predicted good fortune.⁵ The diagram found was gu 蠱, which said, “The thousand chariots are thrice put to flight; from what remains of the three flights, seize the brave fox.”⁶ For the sixteenth year of Duke Cheng [574 B.C.E.], it is said that a battle was fought at Yanling, at which the duke consulted the milfoil and the diviner predicted good fortune. The diagram found was fu 復, which said, “The southern kingdom is in distress; its king has been struck in the eye by an arrow.”⁷ These are both instances where the Zhou Yi [the Zhou Changes] was not used and words were quoted from other sources. This is what is referred to as the method of the three Changes. But the Zuo Zhuan does not speak of the Yi [Changes].

1.3 ZHU XI’S THE ORIGINAL MEANING OF THE ZHOU “CHANGES” (ZHOU YI BENYI)

Comment: This is a detailed essay on the arrangement of the Changes, focusing particularly on several important commentaries—those of Zheng Xuan (127–200), Wang Bi (226–249), Cheng Yi (1033–1107), and Zhu Xi (1130–1200). Gu’s main aim is to stress the need for a thorough understanding of the classic, which includes a knowledge of the commentaries and how they are arranged in relation to the basic text. He also draws attention to the trivialization that developed as a result of the examination system.

The Zhou Changes [Zhou Yi], from Fu Xi’s drawing of the diagrams, the tuanci 彖辭 [explanations of the diagrams] written by King Wen, and the yaoci 爻辭 [explanations of the lines] written by the Duke of Zhou, was referred to as a classic [jing 經]. The classic was divided into two chapters [pian 篇]. Confucius wrote the ten “wings,” and these were referred to as a commentary. The commentary was [in turn] divided into ten chapters as follows: the tuanzhuan A and B, the xiangzhuan A and B, the xici A and B, all in two chapters, and the wenyan, the shuoguazhuan, the xuguazhuan, and the zaguazhuan, each in one chapter. From Han times on, the situation was confused by Fei Zhi, Zheng Xuan, and Wang Bi,⁸ who took the words of Confucius and appended them piecemeal to the trigrams and lines. Cheng Zhengshu’s [Cheng Yi’s] commentary followed this.⁹ It was not until Zhu Xi’s Zhou Yi Benyi that reliance on the ancient writings began. Thus, in his heading of the “Zhou Yi Shangjing” section, he said, “In the Changes there is what was confused to some extent by many scholars. In the present age, Chao Shi¹⁰ was the first to correct these errors, but he was not able to completely bring the text into line with the ancient text. Lü Shi¹¹ also changed and rearranged it, editing the classic to create two sections [juan 卷] of the classic itself and ten sections of commentary, returning to the original discussion of Confucius.”¹²

At the beginning of the Hongwu reign period [1368–1399], there was promulgation of the study of the Five Classics among the Confucian scholars of the empire, and in the case of the Changes, the combined writings of Cheng Yi and Zhu Xi were used. Also, each of these men himself wrote a work [on the Changes]. During the Yongle reign period [1403–1425], the Daquan was compiled, and the various sections of Zhu Xi’s work were divided up and appended to [the appropriate sections] of Cheng’s commentary.¹³ In this way the ancient text that Zhu Xi had established was returned to disorder and confusion. “The tuan 彖 were the words [of explanation] added by King Wen.” “The zhuan 傳 were the words Confucius used to explicate the classic. Subsequently, whoever spoke of the zhuan was referring to this.”¹⁴ This, then, properly followed the “Tuan Shangzhuan.” Nowadays, the three characters tuan shang zhuan have been deleted [from here] and added to follow the statement, “Great indeed is the originating power of qian 乾.”¹⁵ “In regard to the images, the two [upper and lower] as well as the six lines of the two images were explanations appended by the Duke of Zhou.”¹⁶ This was an explanation following the section “Xiang Shangzhuan.” Now the three characters xiang shang zhuan 象上傳 have been deleted [from here] and added to follow “Heaven in its motion is full of power.”¹⁷ “This section extends the meaning of the Treatise on the Tuan and the Treatise on the Symbols by bringing together the profundity of the two diagrams, qian 乾 and kun 坤, and the rest of the explanation, because of this, can be inferred from what was said.” This was the interpretation following the wenyan section, but now the two characters wen yan 文言 have been deleted [from here] and the statement added to follow “Originating is the chief quality of goodness.”¹⁸ These “tuan says,” “xiang says,” and “wenyan says” were all absent from Zhu Xi’s original work. They were included on the basis of Cheng Yi’s commentary. Later scholars who disliked Cheng’s commentary were numerous, and they cast it aside without reading it, using only the Benyi. And the Daquan was what the court promulgated, so no one dared to make frequent alterations. Subsequently, with respect to the National University edition of the commentaries and explanations, there was the excision and discarding of Cheng’s commentary, although his sequence was used as Zhu Xi’s sequence. This arrangement was handed down for almost two hundred years. It is indeed unfortunate that the book with Zhu Xi’s established corrections could not be seen in the world. How can this be construed as other than a misfortune with respect to this classic!

Zhu Xi, in his Ji Songshan Chao Shi Guayao Tuanxiang Shuo, says, “The ancient classic was first changed by Fei Shi and finally brought to a state of great confusion by Wang Bi.”¹⁹ This relies on Kong Shi [Kong Yingda], who, in his “Zhengyi” [orthodox interpretations], said, “What the Sage wrote explaining the images originally followed the classical explanations of the six lines. Because of his modest and retiring nature, he did not dare disturb the explanations of the first Sage correcting the classic. Wang Fusi’s [Wang Bi’s] idea was that in considering the images, it was appropriate to bring the original images of the classical ...