先考察一下《易传》的著作年代。
自欧阳修疑古成说，提出“系辞非圣人之所作”后，《易传》的著作年代便成为悬而难决的问题。现代以来，最为流行的是战国晚期说，比较慎重的是中期说，只有少数学者坚持孔子和春秋末期说。诸说之间聚散分合，远非如此崭然分明。其间值得注意的问题还有：其所确定之年代，是指书的创始、流传、写定还是勒成卷帙，汇编成册等问题，都须搞清。不可用编成、产生等不确定语塞责。不然，纷纭聚讼，永无止息之日矣。总之，摈弃信史于不顾，仅以个别字词为据，推翻成说，窃以为不可。予取《易传》创始于孔子，初具规模于孔子商瞿师弟之间，口耳流传于春秋战国之际，写定亦即成书于战国前期，早于庄、孟为说。兹博采众家，述之如后：
Zhouyi was originally
a book of divination. Till the Spring &
Autumn period, beyond divination, people began
to analyze the hexagrams’ images and make
interpretations with their philosophical connotations.
For instance, according to records in Zuo
zhuan (Zuo’s Commentaries on the Spring
and Autumn Annals)(The
first chronological history covering the period
from 722 BC to 464 BC, presumably illustrating
the Spring and Autumn Annals, and attributed
to Zuoqiu Ming, official historian of the
State of Lu, but generally believed to have
been completed in the early Warring States
Period. ), in the
22nd year during the reign of the
Duke Zhuang of the state of Lu, a historiographer
brought Zhouyi with him and paid a
visit to Marquis of Chen. They made a divination
with Zhouyi and got the hexagram of
Guan (Contemplation) transforming into
the hexagram of Pi (Stagnation). He
analyzed the relevant Yao Ci (remarks
attached to specific lines of a hexagram,
hereafter we call it line remarks) as: “guang
(radiation) betokens honors will be brought
to your family by him long after. Kun
(the lower trigram of the hexagram of Guan)
symbolizes earth; Xun (the upper trigram
of the hexagram of Guan) symbolizes
wind; Qian (the upper trigram of the
hexagram of Pi) symbolizes heaven.
Wind (the image of the upper trigram of Guan)
transforms into heaven over the earth, the
mountain (the image of Ken formed from
the 3rd to the 5th line
of the hexagram of Guan). (It delivers
the connotation of that) the woods (image
of Xun) on the mountain irradiated
by the sun shining, and reside on the earth.
These images deciphers the line remark of
that: ‘look at the splendor (radiation) of
the nation, it is advantageous to be the king’s
guest’.” A great number of divination cases
with image analysis in Zuo’s Commentaries
on the Spring and Autumn Annals and Guoyu
(Remarks of Monarchs) exposed that
at that time people had felt dissatisfied
with the oracle from line remarks alone, they
need interpretations of the whys. It was not
important how this kind of analysis was similar
with Yi zhuan later completed, it was
important that this need met the universal
social demand to seek philosophical connotations
from images and line remarks in Zhouyi.
Moreover, similar monograph of this kind had
then emerged. It was recorded in Zuo’s
Commentaries on the Spring and Autumn Annals
that, when Han Xuanzhi was visiting the
state of Lu, he found two books: Yi Images
and the Spring and Autumn Annals of (the
State of) Lu in a historiographer’s work
place, and sighed in admiration: “I know the
Duke of Zhou’s virtues and why Zhou enjoyed
public support and gained the state power.”
(2nd year during the reign of
the Duke Zhao of the state of Lu) DU Yu,
the annotator of Zuo’s Commentaries,
maintains Yi Images refers to the chapter
of Image in Zhouyi. But Zhouyi
was also circulating in the state of Jin then.
If there were no creative interpretations,
HAN Xuanzhi would not express his praise in
such admiration. Mr. LI Xue-qin, a modern
eminent scholar on ancient documents in China,
asserts: “Yi Images ought to be a book
elaborating images of the trigrams or hexagrams.”
1 Social demands and earlier documents
are enough to prove that Yi zhuan came
into being at the end of the late Spring &
Autumn Period. Next is to clarify the relationship
between Yi zhuan and Confucius.
《周易》本是占筮之书，但到春秋时期，人们在占筮之余，已经开始对卦象进行分析，作出义理的解释。如《左传》庄公二十二年，周史以《周易》见陈侯，筮遇《观》之《否》，其解爻辞曰：“光，远而自他有耀者也。坤，土也；巽，风也；乾，天也。风为天于土上，山也。有山之材而照之以天光，于是乎居土上，故曰‘观国之光，利用宾于王'。”《左传》、《国语》此类卦象分析的筮例甚多，表明这时人们已不满足于爻辞的占断，还必须作出所以然的解释。不在于这种分析与后来的《易传》如何的相似，而在于这种需要构成了对《周易》卦象爻辞作出义理分析的普遍社会需求。而且此时已经有了类似的专书。据《左传》记载，韩宣子聘鲁时，在太史处见到《易象》和《鲁春秋》两书，赞叹道：“吾乃今知周公之德与周之所以王也。”（《昭公二年》）杜预认为《易象》就是《周易》上下经之象辞。然晋也有《周易》流传，如无新解创意，韩宣子就不会如此倾倒赞叹了。李学勤先生判断说：“《易象》应该是论述卦象的书。”[1]既有社会需要，又有先行文献，《易传》产生在春秋末期的充足条件已经具备。那么剩下的就是孔子与《易传》的关系了。
Ancient
texts and books have enough records about
and many scholars of the pre-Qin times had
referred to Confucius’ sorting out and teaching
the Six Classics including Zhouyi.
This is not easy to be totally denied. (By
Shi ji, the Historical Records:
the Author’s Preface, “Confucian scholars
take the Six Classics as their norms. And
the Six Classics have been passed down to
thousands and millions of people.”) “The Six
Classics are permeated with one dominating
spirit. While, the Rites stresses moderating
behavior; the Book of Music is to voice
out harmony; the Book of History is
to guide (how to deal with) issues; the
Book of Poetry is to express feelings;
the Book of Change (Yi) is to
expound the essence of unpredictable changes;
the Spring and Autumn Annals is to
manifest justice.” (Historical Records:
Biographies of amusing figures) The problem
is, in sorting out and teaching the Six Classics,
whether Confucius, like he himself said, only
retold the works of his predecessors without
contributing new ideas or not. What he said
is a fact or a self-depreciatory expression?
I believe it has the both at the same time.
The former four classics mentioned above were
all written before Confucius, only the
Spring and Autumn Annals was composed
by Confucius, for Mencius said: “Confucius
wrote the Spring and Autumn Annals,
making traitors and usurpers fear”. In some
people’s opinion, this kind of composition
is only a kind of revise and finalization.
But the norms for revise and principles for
the introduction and guide to the book could
not be done by others except Confucius, for
they need an ideological prop at the back.
It is indeed as what Mr. CHEN said that concepts
of benevolence and justice had come into being
before Confucius was born, but it was Confucius
who made these concepts ascending to a philosophical
level, and based upon them, founded an academic
system. It is just like that, although the
character of “Dao” emerged before the day
of Lao zi, it is not an obstacle for Lao zi
to enjoy the reputation of being the founder
of Daoism. Therefore, Confucius’ teaching
benevolence and justice was accompanied with
contributing new ideas. So it is with his
revising the Yi, the Rites,
the Book of Poetry, as well as the
Book of History. Retelling ought not
to be understood as a reciting, it is a recounting.
Recounting is inseparable from metaphor and
analogy, aiming at elaborating profound philosophical
connotations. So, this kind of retelling is
also a kind of setting forth new ideas. It
seemed that at that time writing only referred
to writing the classics, but why did people
say Confucius only wrote the Spring and
Autumn Annals, but not say he wrote Yi
zhuan and even the books of Poetry, History,
Rites and Music? Though it is no doubt that
these five classics were written by earlier
sages, for, according to certain records,
King Wen of Zhou wrote the Book of Changes,
the Duke of Zhou wrote the Book of Music
and the (Book of) Rites, legendary
has it that the Book of Poetry was
also written by other sages earlier than Confucius.
It is evident that Confucius was self-depreciatory.
More importantly, these classics regarded
as canons by Confucian scholars lack of social
and historical views, so they need Confucius’
revision. His revision to the Spring and
Autumn Annals was a great composition
comparable with the writing of the other classics,
and so Mencius said the Spring and Autumn
Annals was “written” by Confucius. As
for the other five classics, Confucius only
touched them up. So it is with Yi zhuan.
But Confucius’ recounting of Yi certainly
was accompanied with his recreation.
孔子整理传授包括《周易》在内的六经，史籍备载，诸子称道，要想一笔抹杀殊非易事。（“夫儒者以六艺为法，六艺经传以千万数”（《太史公自序》）。“六艺于治一也，《礼》以节人，《乐》以发和，《书》以导事，《诗》以达意，《易》以神化，《春秋》以道义。”（《滑稽列传》）问题在于孔子的整理传授工作，是否如其所自云的“述而不作”。此语是谦词还是实述，余意兼而有之。述是继承讲述，作是创制著作。《诗》《书》《易》《礼》皆作自前人，而《春秋》却作自孔子，孟子说“孔子作《春秋》，乱臣贼子惧”。在一些人的眼中，这种所谓作，不过是在原有史书基础上的笔削删述而已。然而所以笔削的标准，发凡起例的原则，却非孔子不能为。这背后是需要一个思想体系作支撑的。诚然如陈先生所说，仁义的观念早在孔子之前就已存在。但将仁与义的观念提升到哲学的高度，并以之建成一个学术系统的，却是孔子。正如道字出现于老子之前，并无碍于老子享有道论哲学的发明权一样。所以孔子道仁义，可以称之为述中有作。对于《易》《礼》《诗》《书》等，也应当作如是观。述是不能理解为转述或徒事背诵的，只能是讲述，讲述就离不开多方为喻，比兴发挥，务以阐明其所蕴含之义理为指归。那么这种讲述也就是作。但“作”在当时似乎仅指经典的著作，为什么只说孔子作《春秋》，而不说孔子作《易传》乃至于《诗》《书》《礼》《乐》呢？固然是因为《诗》《书》《礼》《乐》原本就作自往圣先贤，比如“作《易》者，其有忧患乎？”是说文王；“制《礼》作《乐》”则属于周公；传说《诗经》的作者也都是前代的大贤。孔子的自谦，有其必然性。但更为重要的是，在这些被孔门视若大经大法的著作中，缺少社会历史观的经典，不得不由孔子笔削补著，《春秋》的删述是堪与《诗》《书》《礼》《乐》比美的大制作，故尔被孟子称之为“作”。而对于《易》《诗》《书》《礼》《乐》，孔子只是删定、只是述而已。至于《易传》只是述《易》的产品，本来就不在“作”的范围之内，当然也就谈不上孔子“作”《易传》的问题了。但其属于“述”的范围，是述中之作。
The
chapter of Shu Er in the Analects
of Confucius records: “ Confucius said:
‘let me live longer for several years, (even
if I) began to study Yi from at the
age of 50, I would have no big faults’”. The
Chapter of Zi Lu gave an account of
Confucius’ quoting remarks from Yi:
“Confucius said: ‘Southern people have said,
if one is not persevering, he can not be a
witch doctor’, what a good saying! Confucius
said: ‘(one who does) not persevering in accomplishing
him/herself with virtues will have to bear
humiliation’, this can be known without divination.”
This directly proved that Confucius had studied
Yi and was inclined to Yi’s
philosophical connotations. Doctor DENG Li-guang
pointed out that the Chapter of Xian Wen
records: “Confucius said: ‘one who holds no
official does not discuss official business
or affairs’. Zeng Zi complemented: ‘the superior
man’s thought will not be beyond his position’.”
Zeng Zi’s complementation was just a quotation
from the Image of the hexagram of Ken:
“Double mountains, Ken, (inspired and enlightened
by the image,) the superior man’s thought
will not be beyond his position”.2
Unless
the Image had come into being when
Zeng Zi was living, the complementation must
be quoted from Confucius’ commentaries on
Yi. The Hereditary House of the
Family of Confucius in the Historical
Records indicates: “Confucius began to
be fond of Yi in his old age, and arranged
the Judgment, Xi Ci (the Great
Treatise), the Image, Shuogua
(the Treatise of Remarks on the trigrams)
and Wenyan (the Remarks on the First
and Second Hexagrams) in order. He studied
Yi so hard and diligently that the
leather thongs binding the bamboo slips on
which the book was inscribed were broken three
times. (Confucius) said: ‘If there would be
several years added to me, I would have mastered
the quintessence of Yi well.’” Both
the Biographies of Confucius’ Disciples
and the Biographies of Academic Scholars
in the Historical Records accounted
that Confucius passed down Yi to SHANG
Qu, from SHANG Qu to TIAN He (of the Western
Han Dynasty) in the State of Qi passed 6 generations,
TIAN passed it down to YANG He born in Zi
Chuan. It is a very clear imparting tree.
According to the Author’s Preface in
the Historical Records, SI-MA Tan,
SI-MA Qian’s father, studied Yi from
YANG He. SI-MA Qian inherited his father’s
learning, so his accounts on Yi must
have its original basis. If these records
are unreliable, what will be reliable? Moreover,
SI-MA Qian only mentioned eight wings of the
Judgment (I, II), Xi Ci (I,
II), the Image (I, II), Shuogua,
Wenyan of Yi zhuan, the other
two wings of Zagua (the Treatise on
the Hexagrams Taken Promiscuously, According
to the Opposition or Diversity of Their Meaning)
and Xugua (the Orderly Sequence of
the Hexagrams) were not mentioned. In addition,
He put a character of Xu (literally,
arrange something in order) before the eight
wings. Xu means originate, order. According
to Er Ya (literally, Near to Correctness,
earliest Chinese dictionary compiled between
221 B.C.-220 A.D.), Xu means beginning.
This exposed that these eight wings were originated
from but not completed by Confucius. (Orthodoxy
Meanings of Zhouyi compiled under the
emperor’s order by KONG Ying-da, a famous
scholar in the Tang Dynasty, indicates: “Xu
refers to the part of Xugua”, thus
the whole sentence is difficult to make sense,
so I would not follow this interpretation.)
《论语·述而》篇记有：“子曰：加我数年，五十以学《易》，可以无大过矣。”《子路》篇还有孔子引《易》之文的记述：“子曰：‘南人有言曰，人而无恒，不可以作巫医'，善夫！‘不恒其德，或承之羞。'子曰：不占而已矣。”（意为：根据《恒卦》爻辞，无恒之人，必承其羞，这是不待占而可知的。）这是孔子学《易》并倾向义理的直接证据。邓立光博士指出《宪问》篇载“子曰：不在其位，不谋其政。曾子曰：‘君子思不出其位'。”曾子的补充论证正是引用《艮·象传》：“兼山，艮，君子以思不出其位”
之辞。[2]若非曾子其时已有《象传》，亦必是其援引孔子论《易》语。据《史记·孔子世家》记载：“孔子晚而喜《易》，序《彖》、《系》、《象》、《说卦》、《文言》。读《易》，韦编三绝，曰：加我数年，若是，我于《易》则彬彬矣。”《仲尼弟子列传》和《儒林列传》都载有孔子传《易》于商瞿，自瞿六传而至齐人田何，再传至淄川人杨何的渊源系统。据《太史公自序》言，司马谈为太史公，受《易》于杨何。迁传父学，则其述《易》之辞，有自来矣。此而不可信，则将何信？颇为耐人寻味的是，迁于《易传》只举《彖》、《系》、《象》、《说卦》、《文言》八传，不及《杂卦》、《序卦》。又偏于八传之前着一“序”字。序者，发端、次第之谓也。《尔雅·释诂》云：“序，绪也，字亦作叙，谓端绪也。”透露了此八传，皆作始于孔子，而并非完成于孔子也。（孔颖达《正义》云：“序，《序卦》也。”从之则整句难通，异读则愈加费解，故不从。）
According to the sigh with regret of “it is difficult
to know of Confucius’ view on (human) nature
and the way of heaven” (the Analects of
Confucius: Gong Ye-chang) from Zi Gong,
one of Confucius’ disciples, it can be seen
that, for Confucius’ ordinary disciples, they
could only receive and know “Confucius’ views
on morality and virtues”. As for “(human)
nature and the way of heaven” are concerned,
on account of their profoundness, they belong
to a special learning. When he interprets
this sigh, ZHU Xi set forth that “Confucius
taught disciples probably in different manner
and with different contents”, so, some of
his disciples were unable to know nature and
the way of heaven”. (The Collected Annotations
on the Four Books. The four books refer
to the four major Confucian classics: the
Great Learning, the Doctrine of Mean,
the Analects of Confucius and Mencius)
According to Confucius’ teaching a person
in accordance with his aptitude, profound
classics as Yi and the Spring and
Autumn Annals might be taught to classes
with certain disciples, like research class,
with necessary discussions. There might be
no drafts or texts for the class, yet, there
might be related notes about Confucius’ views
and experience in studying Yi, as well
as discussions between the teacher and disciples.
Even if these contents were taught orally,
and then were compiled, with some contents
missed, or supplemented, or errors, all these
contents had to be originated from Confucius’s
commentaries. Therefore, the Ten Wings
ought to be a collection of Confucius’ teaching
and commentaries on Yi. After Confucius
died, over seventy of Confucius’ virtuous
disciples must have discussed to sort out
Confucius’ edification. The sorting out of
Yi zhuan and the editing of the
Analects of Confucius might be at this
time or a little later.
据子贡“夫子之言性与天道，不可得而闻”（《论语·公冶长》）的慨叹，说明一般弟子，只能接闻“夫子之道德文章”。至于“性与天道”，以其高深而属于术业专攻的学问。朱熹解释此语时就认为“盖圣门教不躐等”，因而“学者有不得闻者”（《四书集注》）。根据孔子因材施教的原则，如《易》与《春秋》之义理，必是另有讲授，有类今之研究班之属，不仅口耳相授，而且相与切磋。当时或无讲稿，然而孔子学易心得，师弟论学语要，不容没有提纲和笔录。即使口耳相传，尔后勒之于简策，有所遗漏，有所增补，有所舛误，要非初不出于孔子也。则《易》之十翼，孔门传《易》者讲授之类编也。孔子殁后，七十子必有整理孔子遗教之议，《易传》的整理与《论语》的编辑，大约是同一时期或稍后的工作。
The Text and Commentaries of Zhouyi, as well
as the chapters of Er San Zi Wen (Questions
Asked by Some Disciples), Yao (Essentials),
and Yi Zhi Yi (Connotations of Yi)
copied on silk excavated at Ma-wang-dui,
Hunan Province, further revealed the relation
between Yi zhuan and Confucius. The
Essentials records: “Confucius was fond
of Yi in his old age, when he sit,
he brought it in the mat; When he went out,
he brought it in his baggage”. Zi Gong (子贡) doubted why Confucius
was so in favor of Yi. Confucius responded
that Zhouyi “remains edifications left
from ancient times. I am not content with
its usage, I like its remarks”. Confucius
further expressed his thought: “What people
of future generations suspect me may be (my
love of) Yi? I just seek virtues from
it, the historical wizards and I take the
same routes but reach different goals.” The
chapter also indicates: “Confucius said: ‘as
for Yi, I prefer its virtues and righteousness
to its divination.” 3 These records
not only can prove the records about Confucius
loving Yi in SI-MA Qian’s Historical
Records made no mistake, but also can
mutually corroborate the records about Confucius’
sayings in Xi Ci of Zhouyi in
current version. In the book of Seeking
the Origin of the Text and Commentaries of
Zhouyi, Mr LI Xue-qin made a comparison
between and collation by the two kinds of
records. Meanwhile, he points out that the
sentence structure of “What people of future
generations suspect me may be (my love of)
Yi?” in Yi zhuan copied on silk
is similar with that of “Confucius said: ‘what
people will understand me must be by (my revision
of) the Spring and Autumn Annals?
And what people will reproach me should
still be
(my revision of) the Spring and
Autumn Annals?” recorded in Mencius.
Since the latter was Confucius’ utterance
on his revising the Spring and Autumn Annals,
the former must be his utterance on his teaching
and expanding Yi. This expansion would
only be Yi zhuan interpreting line
remarks in Zhouyi Confucius loves.
马王堆出土帛书《周易》经传，并《二三子问》、《要》、《易之义》诸篇，更进一步说明《易传》与孔子的关系。《要》篇记载“夫子老而好《易》，居则在席，行则在囊”。子贡以此为疑，孔子则认为《周易》“有古之遗言焉。予非安其用，而乐其辞”。又说：“后世之士疑丘者，或以《易》乎？吾求其德而已，吾与史巫同涂而殊归者也。”又“子曰：《易》，我后其祝卜矣，我观其德义耳也。”[3]不仅证明了《史记》不误，而且可以和今本《系辞》相印证。李学勤先生在《周易经传溯源》一书中一一作了比勘。同时指出“后世之士疑丘者，或以《易》乎？”一语与《孟子》所记“孔子曰：知我者，其惟《春秋》乎？罪我者，其惟《春秋》乎？”句式的相似。既然后者是因笔削《春秋》而发，则前者也必因于《易》有所述作而言，而此述作只能是解释其所乐爻辞的《易传》。
Mr. ZHANG Dai-nian has criticized those who limited
the completed time of Yi zhuan from
the Qin to the Han dynasties excessively suspected
the ancient history of China. With detailed
demonstration, he set forth: “the basic parts
of Yi zhuan were formed from the mid
to the late period of the Warring States period.”
4
张岱年先生曾批评将《易传》成书限定在秦汉之间的说法“疑古过勇”，经过缜密论证，他指出：“《易大传》的基本部分是战国中期至战国晚期的著作。”[4]
Mr. LIU Da-jun made a more detailed textual research
by comparing sentences and characters in Yi
zhuan and those in works of Lao zi, Zhuang
zi, Zi Si (Confucius’ grandson) and Mencius
passed down through generations, he firmly
maintains “the basic parts of Yi zhuan
were completed from the early to the mid of
the Warring States period” and “the Judgment,
the Image, and the Remarks of Wenyan
in Yi zhuan were sifted and neated
by the school of Zi Si and Mencius; Xi
Ci also contains thought of Zi Si and
Mencius.5
刘大钧先生接着作了更为深入的研究和详密的考证，将《易大传》各篇文字与老庄、思孟的传世著作相比勘，认定“《易大传》的基本部分是战国初期至战国中期写成”；“《易大传》之《彖》《象》《文言》为思孟学派所整理、润色，《系辞》中亦有思孟学的内容”（《周易概论·关于周易大传》）[5]。
Mr.
GAO Heng insists that, only interpreting meanings
of the remarks affiliated to the hexagrams
and the name of a hexagram, the Judgment
was the first completed chapter in Yi zhuan;
the Image was the next completed chapter,
for it only interprets the remarks affiliated
to lines but not those to the hexagrams. Because
most of the meter and rhyme scheme used in
the two chapters were that used by the dialects
of the state of Chu, the author ought to be
Xuan Bi Zi Gong and his disciples”6.
Meanings
of the remarks attached to hexagram and those
to line were the first issue to be resolved
in learning Yi. So, it was impossible
for Confucius and SHANG Qu not to have mentioned
them. Zi Gong (子弓)
learned Yi from SHANG Qu. The two chapters
were probably revised by Zi Gong (子弓)
according to rhymes of the dialects of Chu.
Xun zi (312-230 BC) would simultaneously praise
Confucius and Zi Gong (子弓)
as “sages” and “great scholars”. This can
adequately manifest the origin of Zi Gong’s
Yi learning. If it were Xuan Bi Zi Gong who
completed the two chapters, it would be unnecessary
to stress where he received Yi learning
from. Besides, genres and sentence patterns
adopted in ancient books written in the early
Warring States period, such as: Fang Ji,
the Doctrine of the Mean, Biao Ji,
Zi Yi, and Shen Yi written by
Zi Si and collected in Li Ji (Records
of the Rituals), are much similar with those
adopted in Wen Yan and Xi Ci,
and there exist quotations from chapters of
Yi zhuan. Therefore, in writing the
articles mentioned above, Zi Si imitated the
writing style of Yi zhuan. According
to Mr. GAO Heng’s textual research, Sheng
Yi in the Records of the Rituals
quoted: “Yi says: ‘the transformation
of the second line of the hexagram of Kun
symbolizes straightness and upright’” which
originated from the Image, this can
adequately demonstrate that the Image
was written earlier than Shen Yi. “The
heaven is in high position and the earth is
in low, thus (the hexagrams of) Qian and Kun’s
positions are established” and the following
22 sentences appeared in the Records of
Music written by Gong Sun Ni Zi adopted
the certain part in Xi Ci and made
a little adaptation. Because Xuan Bi Zi Gong,
Zi Si and Gong Sun Ni Zi belong to
Confucius’ “72 brilliant disciples”, and according
to the inferences of the scholars mentioned above, it can be seen that the completed time
of Yi zhuan would not be later than
the earlier Warring States period when the
“72 brilliant disciples” were living.
高亨先生认为《彖传》是《易传》中最早的一篇，只解卦名义和卦辞，《象传》不解卦辞只解爻辞，应在其后。因其用韵多系楚地方言，作者当为马干臂子弓及其后学。[6]易卦名义和卦爻辞，是学《易》首要讲论的问题，孔子商瞿不应不赞一语，而待再传弟子解决。子弓之学得自商瞿，或其用楚语改定而已。荀子常以孔子、子弓并称，誉为“圣人”“大儒”，足以说明子弓易学的渊源所自。若为其所自著，则径自名家可矣，何须强调师承关系？又，战国前期的古书，如《礼记》中子思所作的《坊记》、《中庸》、《表记》、《缁衣》、《深衣》等篇，体裁句式，辞彩文气，都与《文言》、《系辞》极其近似，且有引《易》之文，可见是子思在模仿《易传》的文风。据高亨先生考证《礼记·深衣》称引“《易》曰：‘六二之动，直以方也，”出自《象传》，足证《象传》作于《深衣》之前。而公孙尼子所作《乐记》“天尊地卑，乾坤定矣”以下二十二句，确系袭用《系辞》而略加改动。镈臂子弓、子思和公孙尼子都在“七十子之弟子”之列。根据以上诸先生的论断，可见《易传》不会晚于七十子活动的战国前期。
The
reason for OU-YANG Xiu’s suspecting the author
of Yi zhuan to be Confucius is that he
held: “Yi and the Spring and Autumn
Annals (Yi must be a wrongly written
character) were written by Confucius. The briefer
the language it uses, the deeper the meaning
it contains. I wonder why Yi zhuan comprises
so many contradictions and unnecessary words,
(so I don’t believe it was written by Confucius).
Though it was not the sage’s works, it does
not harm the connotations of Yi”. (Questions
Asked by the Lad Learning Yi) In OU-YANG
Xiu’s opinion, what Confucius wrote would only
be classic books, but Yi zhuan was not
only full of unnecessary words, but also displays
many contradictions between different parts,
so Confucius had not to complete this job. This
point is over absolute, for, according to Mr.
LI Ling’s textual research, it is a rule for
ancient books to be gradually developed into
a definite shape, so we should at first confirm
that (before Yi zhuan was developed into
shape,) there must exist an initial draft text,
which Mr. LIAO Ming-chun called original manuscript,
worked out by Confucius and SHANG Qu. It was
not impossible for SHANG Qu and his classmates
who majored Yi learning to make simple
notes and after class sort out of the discussions
between Confucius and his disciples. Otherwise,
how to recite and spread Confucius’ commentaries?
Examining what Confucius said and recorded in
the Analects of Confucius, it can be
seen that not all of Confucius’ sayings were
concisely termed with numerous connotations.
For Confucius, revising the Spring and Autumn
Annals is a kind of rewriting by certain
rules, interpreting Yi Jing is a kind
of teaching which allows more expansion of one’s
own ideas. Notes on this kind of teaching should
be similar to Confucius’ analects. Furthermore,
words from the discussion were not all uttered
by Confucius. Except the contents of what “Confucius
said”, the other ought to be his disciples’
utterance of Confucius’ view. Only in this way,
can “the teacher’s and the disciples’ utterance
be mixed together”. (ibid) OU-YANG Xiu indicated:
“as for what the sir said means, it refers to
teacher’s saying”. This was particularly mistaken.
Imitating the layout of the Analects of Confucius,
all contents marked with what the sir said were
the notes taken down by the disciples. If they
refer to a teacher’s utterance, it should have
marked the surname of the sir, such as ZNEG
zi (zi means sir), GONG-SUN-NI Zi and
so on. All of the Confucian books in the Warring
States period appealed for the spreading of
Confucius’ thought. Some might have made a little
expansion, some might change a way of expression.
Generally speaking, all of them were to express
Confucius’ views on Yi and Dao. As for what
OU-YANG XIU indicated that for one thing, there
were two, three, even five different sayings,
some were to narrate different hearing, some
were to comment on Yi from different
angles and different levels, for instance, commentaries
on the origin of the trigrams belong to the
latter case. This can also demonstrates that
Confucius taught Yi not only at one time
and not only for one disciple. Afterwards, the
notes were handed down one generation after
another and separated and united several times,
and finally completed in the early Warring States
period. OU-YANG
Xiu’s mistake was that he did not know most
parts of Yi zhuan were the disciples’notes
about the teacher’s utterance and their expansions.
Like the Analects of Confucius, Yi
zhuan was not Confucius’ works. Nevertheless,
OU-YANG Xiu admitted, though Yi zhuan
was not Confucius’ utterance, “it contains the
sage’s inner meaning of simulating the Dao of
the Heaven and Earth” (OU-YANG Xiu. Narration
and Interpretation of the General Catalogue
of the Imperial Library ·Category
of Yi) . He also
adheres that Yi zhuan emerged in the
late Zhou Dynasty. These views may as well be
accepted as an outstanding insight.
欧阳修之疑《易传》，是因为他认定，“孔子之文章，《易》《春秋》是已（《易》字当系笔误），其言愈简其义愈深。吾不知圣人之作，繁衍丛脞之如此也。虽然辨其非圣之言而已，其于易义，尚未有害也”（《易童子问》）。在欧阳修看来，孔子著作只能是言简义深的经书，而《易大传》则不惟词繁而且相互矛盾，圣人必不如此。斯论未免过于绝对，按照李零先生的考证，古书的形成确有其逐渐定型的通例，应该首先承认有一孔子以及商瞿草创的著作文本，亦即廖名春先生所称之祖本。孔子师弟间相与讨论的心得、议论，主攻易学的商瞿诸子，不容没有简单的笔记和课后的整理，不然如何记诵如何传播？今查《论语》所记孔子言行，也并不皆词约义丰。笔削《春秋》是著书，可按义例删改；讲解《易经》是授课，更多随文发挥，此坛堂讲录当与《论语》相去不远。何况讨论之辞不尽出自孔子。除“子曰”者外，余者当系从学弟子述师意之言。唯其如此，才能有“老师名家之世学，长者先生之余论，杂于其间者在焉”（同上）。欧阳修说：“至于何谓子曰者，讲师之言也。”此语尤误。凡标明“子曰”者，仿《论语》之例，皆当时及门弟子所记授课之要也。如系讲师之言，当标以某子，如曾子、公孙尼子之类。战国儒家之书，皆以传孔子之学为号召，余者或有发挥，或稍变其语，大抵皆孔子讲易论道之意。至于欧阳修所谓二三其说以至于五，有的不过述异闻，有的则是从不同角度、不同层次论《易》而已。如易卦起源问题即是。由之亦可证孔子讲《易》非一次，听讲之徒非一人。后经历传分合，至于战国前期写定。欧阳修其误在于不知《易传》多系弟子手记师言，并据以再加发挥的结果，与《论语》成书一样，未经孔子手定也。但欧阳修承认其虽非圣人之言，“而圣人法天地之蕴则具存焉”（欧阳修《崇文总目叙释·易类》），以及《易传》产生在去圣未远的三代之末，仍不失为卓识。
As for the meaning of the name of Xi Ci, because
there was a Chinese character of “Xi”
at the end of the Xi Ci zhuan copied
on silk, Mr. CHEN was in doubt that Xi
Ci zhuan in current version might be like
the Judgment and the Image and
be called Xi zhuan. He quoted the interpretation
from the Annotations of the Origin of Chinese
Characters (the earliest Chinese dictionary
by XU Shen (许慎, c.58-c.147) of the
Eastern Han Dynasty) and insists that Xi
(系)
means sum up, finish. “Xi was arranged
in the end to summarize and give a general
commentary on the connotations of the classic.
This style is much like Chu Ci (anthology
of poetry of the State of Chu, mainly of QU
Yuan 屈原,
compiled by Liu Xiang 刘向
of the Western Han Dynasty)
affiliated with the character of Luan 乱
(chaotic) at the end to sum up the whole book.
WANG Yi annotated that “乱” means “理” (straighten out), to
straighten out the inner meaning and summarize
the essentials.” Meanwhile Mr. CHEN points
out “Xi was absolutely not the abbreviation
of Xi Ci, for they are different concepts”7.
This assumption indeed manifests his insight,
but if he only bases on this and maintains
that the writer did not know the meaning of
Xi and changed the name of Xi Ci
zhuan into Xi Ci at random, Mr.
CHEN’s assumption may not comply with the
facts.
再说名义。陈先生认为帛书《系辞传》尾题一“系”字，因而疑及今本《系辞传》与《彖》、《象》一样，应该称为《系传》。引证《说文解字注》系为总持，结束之意。“《系》之尾题以综论总括经义，这种体例，颇似《楚辞》篇后附以‘乱'以结括全篇。王逸注：乱，理也，所以发理词指，总撮其要也。”陈先生同时指出“称之为《系》，绝非《系辞》的省称，因为他们是不同的概念”。[7]此论甚有见地，可备一说。但因之认为，《系辞传》之名是抄定者不知“系”的含义，见传文中多次出现“系辞”一词，便随意改题《系辞》。则恐有违于事实。
SI-MA Tan mentioned Xi Ci zhuan as Yi Da
zhuan in his On the Essentials of the
Six Schools, and thereafter Yi Da Zhuan
became a general substitute for Xi Ci zhuan.
But OU-YANG Xiu explained: “all the ancient
classics have their Zhuan (commentaries),
like Shu (the Book of History) and
Li (the Book of Rites) still
have their Zhuan so far. Here Xi
Ci was called Yi Da zhuan in this
way in the earlier Han Dynasty, and was still
called Xi Ci in the Eastern Han Dynasty.”
And he insists that Xi Ci was called
Yi Da zhuan was much superior to that
the former two classics mentioned have their
commentaries”. Mr. ZHU Bo-kun holds “this
Zhuan elaborated the essential meaning
of Zhouyi, but did not interpret the
ancient text sentence by sentence like the
Judgment and Image”8.
This is why it is called Da (literally,
great) Zhuan. Mr GAO Heng also indicates
that the meaning of Xi Ci in Xi
Ci zhuan differs from the meaning of attaching
remarks to different lines of the hexagrams.
But he didn’t explain in detail. As a matter
of fact, one Xi refers to the affiliated
remarks to different lines of the hexagrams,
and the other refers to the general connotations
of the 384 items of affiliated remarks to
the 384 lines. Because the affiliated remarks
have turned out the spirit of Yi, it
was reasonable to set a general summary as
commentaries on the affiliated remarks. Xi
Ci originally meant the characters attached
to the lines of the hexagrams. With the passage
of time, Xi Ci zhuan was called Xi
Ci in short, like Tuan zhuan was
directly called
Tuan in short. So, this is the only
reason for the difference between Xi Ci
(affiliated characters)
to the various lines and that in Xi Ci
Zhuan. Basing on this, we can judge that
Yi Da zhuan (the Great Commentaries
on Yi) is a philosophical writing to elaborate
and expand the spirit of Yi Jing. The
basis of the commentary departed completely
from the images of affiliated characters,
thus forming the name of Xi Ci zhuan.
Zhuan also contains the meaning of
conveying, i.e. honestly elaborating the original
meaning of a classic. It admits the conveyor
to elaborate the original meaning from different
angles with different comprehension. But,
inner contradiction is not admitted. For example,
the three commentaries on the Spring Annals
were elaborations to the Spring Annals
from different aspects: ZUO’s commentaries
are based on the historical events, GU-LIANG’s
commentaries on the profound meaning it contains,
while GONG-YANG’s commentaries took the both
into consideration. The Ten Wings were
different commentaries on Yi from different
angles by Confucian scholars.
司马谈《论六家要旨》所引《系辞传》语称之为《易大传》，后人遂以通称。欧阳修则说：“古之学经者，皆有大传，今书礼之传尚存，此所谓《系辞》者，汉初谓之《易大传》也。至后汉已为《系辞》矣。”并且认为“《系辞》者谓之《易大传》，则优于《书》《礼》之传远矣”。朱伯昆先生认为“此传是通论《周易》之大义，不是如《彖》《象》那样逐句解经”。[8]此所以称大传也。高亨先生也认为：《系辞传》之系辞与文内系辞其义不同。然则以何不同，则语焉不详。实则一以指系于爻下者，一以总论六十四卦三百八十四爻爻下系辞之总体义涵者也。因为易经之精神俱已分见之于卦爻系辞，再加总括综理其各卦爻辞串讲以见其整体义理精神，谓之为经立传可矣，称之为系辞立传亦可矣。系辞本指爻下所系之辞，《系辞传》系指为系辞所作之传，久而久之，《系辞传》亦简称《系辞》，如《彖传》径称《彖》然。是以卦爻之系辞与《系辞传》之系辞，其名义之不同端在于此，岂有他哉。由此可以判定《易大传》是系统阐述、发挥《易经》精神的哲学论著，立论的依据全是《易经》卦象及其系辞，故有《系辞传》之称。所谓传有传达义，即须忠实地阐发经典的原意，容许传者从不同角度多方阐述发明，也可有不同的理解，但不容许自相矛盾。如《春秋》三传即是从不同侧面对《春秋》经文的传述，《左传》则史实，《谷梁》则义理，《公羊》事理兼顾，各有侧重。《易》之十翼，亦孔门先儒攻《易》之十面受敌法也。
I.
On the Concept of the Dao of Heaven
and Its Academic Attribution
一、关于天道等概念及学派属性问题
According
to “Zi Gong (子贡)
said: Confucius’ writings could be known,
but his teach of (human) nature and the Dao
of heaven can neither be heard or known” (the
Analects of Confucius·Gong
Ye-chang), Mr.
CHEN concluded that Confucius’ philosophy
has nothing to do with human nature and the
Dao of heaven, and he never mentioned them,
and directly inferred that there were not
any these concepts in Confucius’ philosophy.
This conclusion is a challenge to ancient
Chinese grammar. For instance, one’s friend
collects famous paintings of all ages, but
his friend never rashly show them to others,
so one would say in the presence of others:
“We can see the modern paintings collected
by my friend, but those before the Ming and
Qing dynasties can not be seen”. Must “can
not be seen” mean not having? Many people
know that there indeed deeply collected many
paintings of the Ming and Qing dynasties in
the people. It is not the case of human nature
and the Dao of heaven in Confucius’s philosophy,
because, if Confucius had never mentioned
“(human) nature and the Dao of heaven”, where
could Zi Gong know of these concepts? So,
Zi Gong must have heard about human nature
and the Dao of heaven from Confucius. This
“can neither be heard or known” always means
the nature and the Dao of heaven “can not
be easily heard and known”. So, it is arbitrary
to get the conclusion of there not existing,
never referring to, or seldom saying these
concepts only according to Zi Gong’s “can
neither be heard or known”. The saying of
Zi Gong’s “can not be (easily) heard and known”
revealed a regret before he knew them, and
manifested his admiration after he knew them
from Confucius. According to the modern logic
of “negative proposition include affirmative
proposition”, Zi Gong’s saying just testified
Confucius’ philosophy includes his outlook
on the Dao of heaven.
陈书将“子贡曰：夫子之文章，可得而闻也；夫子之言性与天道不可得而闻也”(《论语·公冶长》)，解释为孔子哲学没有性与天道，从来不谈性与天道，干脆就是无此概念。可说是对古代文法语式的挑战，比如某之友家藏历代名画，为某所亲见，然不轻以示人。于是某说：“友之藏画，近代以来可得而见也，明清以上不可得而见也。”不可得而见就一定是没有?此犹不足为喻。因为是人皆知明清书画民间尚有深藏者。而性与天道则不然，孔子不言“性与天道”子贡何从而知之?并且明确说是“孔子所说的性与天道”，可见子贡知道孔子说过。这个“不可得而闻”，向来含有不可轻易得闻之的意思。以“不可得而闻”等于罕言等于不言等于无闻等于没有，是否有武断之嫌。子贡所云“不可得而闻”者，未闻之前，遗憾之辞也；既闻之后，赞叹之辞也。按照现代逻辑“否命题包含着正命题”的通则，此语恰恰证明了孔子哲学是包含着天道观的。
Mr. CHEN holds philosophical connotations of the concepts
of Dao (way) and virtue in
Yi zhuan are the same as those in Lao
zi and Zhuang zi. HAN Yu (768-824, a famous writer
and philosopher of the Tang Dynasty) in his
Original Dao had distinguished differences
between Confucianism and Daoism: “What the
Dao he (Lao zi) refers to is not what I called
the Dao; and what the De (literally, virtue)
he (Lao zi) refers to is not what I called
the De. What I called the Dao-de is implicated
with benevolence and righteousness, which
departed from the will of the public under
the heaven. What the Dao-de Lao zi called
has had benevolence and righteousness abolished,
which departed from his selfish will.” (Original
Dao) The combination of benevolence and
righteousness equals to Dao-de. In this way,
without benevolence and righteousness, there
would be no Dao-de. The difference is just
that “benevolence and righteousness are substantial
names, while, Dao and De are states of void”.
The states of void can be filled with different
contents. What the Dao and De Confucius and
Mencius called are ethical virtues of benevolence
and righteousness, which evidently did not
accord to HAN Yu’s original Dao. In other
words, Confucius and Mencius’ Dao was implicated
with more substantial connotations than that
of Lao zi and Zhuang zi’s. For instance, what
the sages’ Dao HAN Yu comprehended was “the
Dao for the two emperors and three kings’
governance, (the Dao for) the motions of the
celestial bodies, (the Dao for) the being
positioned of the heaven and earth, (the Dao
for) the gloominess of ghosts, (the Dao for)
the human procreation and animals’ propagation,
(the Dao for) the flowing of rivers.” (The
Preface to See Buddhist Monk Wen-chang Off)
So, this Dao includes not only benevolence
and righteousness. The Dao to “explore the
norm of between the heaven and human” makes
the unique Confucian characteristic stand
out. This Dao is rigorously distinct from
the Daoism’s Dao of nature, which “aids the
naturalness of the heaven and earth with non-action”.
陈书认为《易传》道德概念的哲学含义与老庄相同。韩愈《原道》曾分析儒道之别曰：“其所谓道，道其所道，非吾之所谓道也。其所谓德，德其所德，非吾所谓德也。凡吾所谓道德云者，合仁与义言之也，天下之公言也。老子之所谓道德云者，去仁与义言之也，一人之私言也。”(《原道》)合仁与义，就是包含仁与义，而且不仅仁与义，因为以为仁与义之和等于道德，则去仁与义之后，也就等于没有了道德。只是“仁与义为定名，道与德为虚位”而已，虚位就是可以向里填充不同的内容。显然认为孔孟所谓道德只是仁与义的人伦道德，是不符合韩愈原道之意的。也就是说孔孟之道，比老庄之道，含有更为丰富的内含。如韩愈所理解的圣人之道是：“二帝三王之道，日月星辰之行，天地之所以著，鬼神之所以幽，人物之所以蕃，江河之所以流。”(《送浮屠文畅师序》)岂止仁义而已。这个“学究天人之际”的所以然之道，正是儒家所独有的特色。而与道家的“以辅天地之自然而不敢为”的自然之道，是有严格区别的。
I admit Confucius was born later than Lao zi, and
Confucius had learned rituals from Lao dan
(Lao zi was also called Lao dan by some people).
The Eastern Zhou Dynasty had thick academic
ethos, and discussions of the differences
between the Dao of Heaven and human affairs,
between Dao and De were in vogue. ZUO’s
Commentaries on the Spring and Autumn Annals
·the
18th Year during the Rule of the
Duke Zhao of Lu records
that Zi chan (then the prime minister of the
state of Zheng) who lives contemporarily with
Confucius, had said: “The Dao of Human is
close, but the Way of Heaven is far and inaccessible.”
Nevertheless, Lao zi made an overall new interpretation
of the Dao of Heaven. Confucius knew but did
not accept Lao zi’s philosophy. Confucius
agreed that Lao zi’s thought of “governing
with non-action” by simulating the Way of
Heaven was the most consummate state, but
only emperors of Yao and Shun were able to
attain to this state. In fact, there are not
emperors like Yao and Shun in present reality,
