Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1Have we not in both cases an ogdoad? But I have looked in the paragraph in vain for the notion of a marriage-union between heaven and earth. It does not treat of the genesis of the other six trigrams by the union of the two, but is a rude attempt to explain their forms when they were once existing’, According to the idea of changes, KAien and Khw§4n are continually varying their forms by their interaction. As here represented, the 1 This view seems to be in accordance with that of Wi King (of the Yiian dynasty), as given in the ‘Collected Comments’ of the Khang-hsf edition. The editors express their approval of it in preference to the interpretation of Ka Hsi, who understood the whole to refer to the formation of the lineal figures, the ‘application’ being ‘the manipulation of the stalks to find the proper line.’ [16] E 50 THE yi KING. CH. IIT, other trigrams are not ‘ produced!’ by a marriage-union, but from the application, literally the seeking, of one of them— of Khwan as much as of K Aien—addressed to the other ?. This way of speaking of the trigrams, moreover, as father and mother, sons and daughters, is not so old as Fd-hsi; nor have we any real proof that it originated with king Win. It is not of ‘the highest antiquity.’ It arose some time in ‘ middle antiquity,’ and was known in the era of the Appendixes ; but it had not prevailed then, nor has it prevailed since, to discredit and supersede the older nomenclature. We are startled when we come on it in the place which it occupies. And there it stands alone. It is not entitled to more attention than the two paragraphs that precede it, or the eight that follow it, none of which were thought by P. Regis worthy to be translated. I have just said that it stands ‘alone.’ Its existence, however, seems to me to be supposed in the fourth chapter, paragraphs 28-30, of the third Appendix, Section ii; but there only the trigrams of ‘the six children’ are mentioned, and nothing is said of ‘the parents. Kan, kh4n, and kan are referred to as being yang, and sun, li, and tui as being yin. What is said about them is trifling and fanciful. Leaving the question of the mythology of the Yi, of which Iam myself unable to discover a trace, I now call attention to paragraphs 8-10, where the author speaks of the work of God in nature in all the year as a progress through the trigrams, and as being effected Operation of . we . oe God in nature by His Spirit. The description assumes the he cea peculiar arrangement of the trigrams, ascribed to king Wan, and which I have exhibited above, on page 33°. Father Regis adopts the general view 1 But the Chinese term Shing EE, often rendered ‘ produced,’ must not be pressed, so as to determine the method of production, or the way in which one thing comes from another.
2Father Regis adopts the general view 1 But the Chinese term Shing EE, often rendered ‘ produced,’ must not be pressed, so as to determine the method of production, or the way in which one thing comes from another. 2 The significance of the mythological paragraph is altogether lost in Canon McClatchie’s version:—‘ Khien is Heaven, and hence he is called Father; Khwin is Earth, and hence she is called Mother; K%n is the first male, and hence he is called the eldest son,’ &c. &c. * The reader will understand the difference in the two arrangements better by a reference to the circular representations of them on Plate III. CH. III. INTRODUCTION. 51 of Chinese critics that Wan purposely altered the earlier and established arrangement, as a symbol of the disorganisation and disorder into which the kingdom had fallen’. But it is hard to say why a man did something more than 3000 years ago, when he has not himself said anything about it. So far as we can judge from this Appendix, the author thought that king Wan altered the existing order and position of the trigrams with regard to the cardinal points, simply for the occasion,—that he might set forth vividly his ideas about the springing, growth, and maturity in the vegetable kingdom from the labours of spring to the cessation from toil in winter. The marvel is that in doing this he brings God upon the scene, and makes Him in the various processes of nature the ‘all and in all.’ The 8th paragraph says :— ‘God comes forth in Kn (to his producing work); He brings (His processes) into full and equal action in Sun; they are manifested to one another in Lf; the greatest service is done for Him in Khwan; He rejoices in Tui; He struggles in Khien; He is comforted and enters into rest in Kh&n; and he completes (the work of) the year in Kin.’ God is here named Ti, for which P. Regis gives the Latin ‘Supremus Imperator,’ and Canon McClatchie, after him, ‘the Supreme Emperor.’ I contend that ‘God’ is really the correct translation in English of Ti; but to render it here by ‘Emperor’ would not affect the meaning of the paragraph. Hsi says that ‘by Ti is intended the Lord and Governor of heaven ;’ and Khung Ying-t4, about five centuries earlier than K(, quotes Wang Pi, who died A.D.
3Hsi says that ‘by Ti is intended the Lord and Governor of heaven ;’ and Khung Ying-t4, about five centuries earlier than K(, quotes Wang Pi, who died A.D. 1 E. g.I, 23, 24 :—' Observant etiam philosophi (lib. 15 Sinicae philosophiae Sing-lf) principem Wan-wang antiquum octo symbolorum, unde aliae figurae omnes perdent, ordinem invertisse ; quo ipsa imperii suis temporibus subversio graphice exprimi poterat, mutatis e naturali loco, quem genesis dederat, iis quatuor figuris, quae rerum naturalium pugnis ac dissociationibus, quas posterior labentis anni pars afferre solet, velut in antecessum, repraesentandis idoneae videbantur; v.g. si symbolum ==—== Lf, ignis, supponatur loco symboli ==—== Khan, aquae, utriusque elementi inordinatio principi visa est non minus apta ad significandas ruinas et clades reipublicae male ordinatae, quam naturales ab hieme aut imminente aut saeviente rerum generatarum cor- ruptiones.’ See also pp. 67, 68, E 2 52 THE yf KING. CH. IT. 249, to the effect that ‘Ti is the lord who produces (all) things, the author of prosperity and increase.’ I must refer the reader to the translation in the body of the volume for the gth paragraph, which is too long to be introduced here. As the 8th speaks directly of God, the oth, we are told, ‘speaks of all things following Him, from spring to winter, from the east to the north, in His progress throughout the year.’ In words strikingly like those of the apostle Paul, when writing his Epistle to the Romans, Wan Khung-jung (of the Khang-hsi period) and his son, in their admirable work called, ‘A New Digest of Collected Explanations of the Yi King, say :—‘God (Himself) cannot be seen ; we see Him in the things (which He produces).’ The first time I read these paragraphs with some understanding, I thought of Thomson’s Hymn on the Seasons, and I have thought of it in connexion with them a hundred times since. Our English poet wrote :— ‘These, as they change, Almighty Father, these Are but the varied God. The rolling year Is full of Thee. Forth in the pleasing spring Thy beauty walks, Thy tenderness and love. Then comes Thy glory in the summer months, With light and heat refulgent. Then Thy sun Shoots full perfection through the swelling year. Thy bounty shines in autumn unconfined, And spreads a common feast for all that lives. In winter awful Thou!’ Prudish readers have found fault with some of Thomson’s expressions, as if they savoured of pantheism. The language of the Chinese writer is not open to the same captious objection. Without poetic ornament, or swelling phrase of any kind, he gives emphatic testimony to God as renewing the face of the earth in spring, and not resting till He has crowned the year with His goodness.
The source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1Have we not in both cases an ogdoad? But I have looked in the paragraph in vain for the notion of a marriage-union between heaven and earth. It does not treat of the genesis of the other six trigrams by the union of the two, but is a rude attempt to explain their forms when they were once existing’, According to the idea of changes, KAien and Khw§4n are continually varying their forms by their interaction. As here represented, the 1 This view seems to be in accordance with that of Wi King (of the Yiian dynasty), as given in the ‘Collected Comments’ of the Khang-hsf edition. The editors express their approval of it in preference to the interpretation of Ka Hsi, who understood the whole to refer to the formation of the lineal figures, the ‘application’ being ‘the manipulation of the stalks to find the proper line.’ [16] E 50 THE yi KING. CH. IIT, other trigrams are not ‘ produced!’ by a marriage-union, but from the application, literally the seeking, of one of them— of Khwan as much as of K Aien—addressed to the other ?. This way of speaking of the trigrams, moreover, as father and mother, sons and daughters, is not so old as Fd-hsi; nor have we any real proof that it originated with king Win. It is not of ‘the highest antiquity.’ It arose some time in ‘ middle antiquity,’ and was known in the era of the Appendixes ; but it had not prevailed then, nor has it prevailed since, to discredit and supersede the older nomenclature. We are startled when we come on it in the place which it occupies. And there it stands alone. It is not entitled to more attention than the two paragraphs that precede it, or the eight that follow it, none of which were thought by P. Regis worthy to be translated. I have just said that it stands ‘alone.’ Its existence, however, seems to me to be supposed in the fourth chapter, paragraphs 28-30, of the third Appendix, Section ii; but there only the trigrams of ‘the six children’ are mentioned, and nothing is said of ‘the parents. Kan, kh4n, and kan are referred to as being yang, and sun, li, and tui as being yin. What is said about them is trifling and fanciful. Leaving the question of the mythology of the Yi, of which Iam myself unable to discover a trace, I now call attention to paragraphs 8-10, where the author speaks of the work of God in nature in all the year as a progress through the trigrams, and as being effected Operation of . we . oe God in nature by His Spirit. The description assumes the he cea peculiar arrangement of the trigrams, ascribed to king Wan, and which I have exhibited above, on page 33°. Father Regis adopts the general view 1 But the Chinese term Shing EE, often rendered ‘ produced,’ must not be pressed, so as to determine the method of production, or the way in which one thing comes from another.
2Father Regis adopts the general view 1 But the Chinese term Shing EE, often rendered ‘ produced,’ must not be pressed, so as to determine the method of production, or the way in which one thing comes from another. 2 The significance of the mythological paragraph is altogether lost in Canon McClatchie’s version:—‘ Khien is Heaven, and hence he is called Father; Khwin is Earth, and hence she is called Mother; K%n is the first male, and hence he is called the eldest son,’ &c. &c. * The reader will understand the difference in the two arrangements better by a reference to the circular representations of them on Plate III. CH. III. INTRODUCTION. 51 of Chinese critics that Wan purposely altered the earlier and established arrangement, as a symbol of the disorganisation and disorder into which the kingdom had fallen’. But it is hard to say why a man did something more than 3000 years ago, when he has not himself said anything about it. So far as we can judge from this Appendix, the author thought that king Wan altered the existing order and position of the trigrams with regard to the cardinal points, simply for the occasion,—that he might set forth vividly his ideas about the springing, growth, and maturity in the vegetable kingdom from the labours of spring to the cessation from toil in winter. The marvel is that in doing this he brings God upon the scene, and makes Him in the various processes of nature the ‘all and in all.’ The 8th paragraph says :— ‘God comes forth in Kn (to his producing work); He brings (His processes) into full and equal action in Sun; they are manifested to one another in Lf; the greatest service is done for Him in Khwan; He rejoices in Tui; He struggles in Khien; He is comforted and enters into rest in Kh&n; and he completes (the work of) the year in Kin.’ God is here named Ti, for which P. Regis gives the Latin ‘Supremus Imperator,’ and Canon McClatchie, after him, ‘the Supreme Emperor.’ I contend that ‘God’ is really the correct translation in English of Ti; but to render it here by ‘Emperor’ would not affect the meaning of the paragraph. Hsi says that ‘by Ti is intended the Lord and Governor of heaven ;’ and Khung Ying-t4, about five centuries earlier than K(, quotes Wang Pi, who died A.D.
3Hsi says that ‘by Ti is intended the Lord and Governor of heaven ;’ and Khung Ying-t4, about five centuries earlier than K(, quotes Wang Pi, who died A.D. 1 E. g.I, 23, 24 :—' Observant etiam philosophi (lib. 15 Sinicae philosophiae Sing-lf) principem Wan-wang antiquum octo symbolorum, unde aliae figurae omnes perdent, ordinem invertisse ; quo ipsa imperii suis temporibus subversio graphice exprimi poterat, mutatis e naturali loco, quem genesis dederat, iis quatuor figuris, quae rerum naturalium pugnis ac dissociationibus, quas posterior labentis anni pars afferre solet, velut in antecessum, repraesentandis idoneae videbantur; v.g. si symbolum ==—== Lf, ignis, supponatur loco symboli ==—== Khan, aquae, utriusque elementi inordinatio principi visa est non minus apta ad significandas ruinas et clades reipublicae male ordinatae, quam naturales ab hieme aut imminente aut saeviente rerum generatarum cor- ruptiones.’ See also pp. 67, 68, E 2 52 THE yf KING. CH. IT. 249, to the effect that ‘Ti is the lord who produces (all) things, the author of prosperity and increase.’ I must refer the reader to the translation in the body of the volume for the gth paragraph, which is too long to be introduced here. As the 8th speaks directly of God, the oth, we are told, ‘speaks of all things following Him, from spring to winter, from the east to the north, in His progress throughout the year.’ In words strikingly like those of the apostle Paul, when writing his Epistle to the Romans, Wan Khung-jung (of the Khang-hsi period) and his son, in their admirable work called, ‘A New Digest of Collected Explanations of the Yi King, say :—‘God (Himself) cannot be seen ; we see Him in the things (which He produces).’ The first time I read these paragraphs with some understanding, I thought of Thomson’s Hymn on the Seasons, and I have thought of it in connexion with them a hundred times since. Our English poet wrote :— ‘These, as they change, Almighty Father, these Are but the varied God. The rolling year Is full of Thee. Forth in the pleasing spring Thy beauty walks, Thy tenderness and love. Then comes Thy glory in the summer months, With light and heat refulgent. Then Thy sun Shoots full perfection through the swelling year. Thy bounty shines in autumn unconfined, And spreads a common feast for all that lives. In winter awful Thou!’ Prudish readers have found fault with some of Thomson’s expressions, as if they savoured of pantheism. The language of the Chinese writer is not open to the same captious objection. Without poetic ornament, or swelling phrase of any kind, he gives emphatic testimony to God as renewing the face of the earth in spring, and not resting till He has crowned the year with His goodness.
The source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.
No commentary for this page.