I read SJ Marshall's 'Mandate of Heaven' last week and it really impressed me, though in some respects, i take it with a grain of salt. Marshall's implication that the Zhouyi is a reliable source of historical information hangs on his assertion that hexagram 55 line 2 contains a reference to a solar eclipse; as such, using astronomical data, he claims to have pinpointed the precise date of the crossing of the river. Marshall himself is the first to is the first to point out the holes in his findings- that in order to reach this conclusion, one must accept his slightly idiosyncratic translation of the original Chinese, as well as the unliklelihood that in all the years scholars have attended to both the Yi and the history of China, nobody else would have noticed.

What really interests me is kind of the opposite implication to the one he's making; that studying the history of the Zhou revolution is perhaps the easiest way for a Westerner or a modern person to understand the symbolism and iconography in the Zhouyi. That if we want to comprehend the meaning of all this, what the images literally refer to and what they meant to the people who wrote this, better to know the history of it, maybe even more fruitful to study that than ancient Chinese, or the bagua or whatever. Because the compass points literally have to do with where enemy tribes were located, etc... It also promotes an awareness of the text as a kind of record of the divinations undertaken by the revolutionaries in order to plot their advances, as clearly, they weren't too sure that overthrowing the established order was such a good idea. It's really telling in that this suggests that the question posed by the Zhouyi itself concerns the auspices for creating what would become modern civilization. And in my experience, this rings very true- this set of guidelines, what we call 'culture' and the ways in which that differs from humanity and what it means to be human is precisely what the Yi encourages me to question.

These are some huge, and massively controversial implications, and I'm curious what others who've read this book or have considered these ideas come away with.

Because personally, whatever the validity of Marshall's solar eclipse theory, it's cast the entire Zhouyi in a whole new light for me.

(edit: um, not a big deal, but can i take that lightbulb thing off the title of this somehow? sorry)

Nobody questions that there are dozens of historical images that evoked lessons learned in the Zhou-era readers, and the more we can learn about these the better we can dig. I don't see it as all connected like Steve does, but people who follow leads like this usually dig up interesting stuff. We need quite a bit of cultural literacy to really understand many of the lines.
We have some of these historical memes in English - I've crossed my Rubicon; he met his Waterloo; dumb shit marched on Moscow in the Winter (that one's 24.6).

It seems (from this review and some follow-up reading that supported it) that it may not have been a solar eclipse at Feng, but omen-reading from sunspots. That doesn't significantly change the historical outline (except of course it isn't dateable like an eclipse), but does change the atmosphere.

As for usefulness of history and myth for understanding - yes, absolutely. We're a story-telling animal, and being able to tell the hexagram's story is a tremendous help in readings. I would recommend Stephen Field's translation as one of the best and best-informed story-sources.

Two provisos: a lot of people pretty much just make up story-associations on the fly and then say, 'Oh, this hexagram is about King Wen's imprisonment' or whatever. No, no, it isn't. The most we can say is, 'When people wrote this, it probably reminded them of this story they were familiar with.' And second, when finding historical references and echoes of ancient readings, it's important to remember this was assembled as an oracle for use, not as a random pile of divination records. (Some translators seem to forget...)

hilary said:

It seems (from this review and some follow-up reading that supported it) that it may not have been a solar eclipse at Feng, but omen-reading from sunspots. That doesn't significantly change the historical outline (except of course it isn't dateable like an eclipse), but does change the atmosphere.
...

Click to expand...

Hi, Hilary:

In favor of the people for whom Stephen Field is unaffordable, could you transcribe some lines of hexagram 55 in his translation? Say, a quote, nothing against (c)!

I did never like too much Pankenier's review. Maybe he is an authority in archaeoastronomy but, I believe, moved more by envy than by passion for the Changes. I think that Steve did not deserve such unfriendly treatment.

I personally added SUNSPOTS to my list of possible alternatives.Time ago I also added Steve's idea of SUN RAYS passing through the holes of a thatched roof, projecting SPOTS OF LIGHT in the ground of a darkened room or other surface like, maybe, the skin of a naked girl, but that's another story.

The case is that Pankenier's enmity or antipathy towards Steve is noticeable and, I believe, unjust.

I like much the connections that Steve did, «se non è vero, è ben trovato» (1)

Possibly Steve was moved by his enthusiasm for the consistency of these connections, committing the same mistake he blamed on Shaughnessy .

The same thing happens with Pankenier's idea of the DUST STORM.


About the «simple mistranslation of the original chinese».

• If there is a MISTRANSLATION is debatable.
  .
• Nobody knows the «ORIGINAL» chinese text of the Zhouyi. (2)
  .
• And the translation of ri zhong as MIDDAY or NOON, doesn't belong to Steve but to a venerable commentarial tradition. (3)
  .
• Even more, the use of 日中 ri4 zhong1 in the changes predates in almost a millennium the documented use of 日中 ri4 zhong1 applied to SUNSPOTS cited by Pankenier.

Alternative almost literal translations:



Some available sources:


All the best,


Charly

_____________________________
(1) «se non è vero, è ben trovato» = «even if it is not true, it is well conceived» (from Merriam*Webster).

(2) Except, maybe, Ritsema-Sabbadini and Margaret Pearson.

(3) I go to look in Richard Lynn what did say the generalissimo Wang Bi about it.

(4) Even if connected with SUNSPOTS, it can have unexpected meanings like: «in the sun was seen a POT wuth a LONG HANDLE looking like the LONG NECK OF A GANDER with its BULGING HED», of course, an almost obscene image of copulation about which nobody should want to speak.

Ch.

Hm, had Steve already reviewed something of Pankenier's? In which case I can well imagine there might be a feud going on.

I actually found Pankenier's review via Field's bibliography of secondary sources. Now... quotation as requested...

Feng, the Royal Capital.

The graph of feng is a pictograph of a ritual vessel filled with grain and generally means "full" or "abundant". Feng was also the name of the Zhou capital founded by King Wen, which is the meaning in this hexagram (Marshall, p.48). Minford's translation as 'Citadel' is an excellent alternate, in light of the omen of the hexagram statement. In conjunction with the location of the Zhou capital city is the ominous sighting of what are probably sunspots when the sky is sufficiently 'veiled'. According to Needham, haze due to dust storms would have permitted the observation of sunspots.

Click to expand...

So for line 4, for instance, he translates,

The Capital in shadow, the ladle appears in the middle of the sun. He will meet a lord of Yi. Good fortune.

Click to expand...

and his commentary is

The omen describes a shadow spreading over the capital city (perhaps a dust cloud from the Gobi Desert). When the brightness of the sun is obscured enough, the ladle appears in the middle of the sun. Good fortune is predicted when King Wu meets a lord of the Eastern Yi barbarians.

Click to expand...

By the way, he has a different take on line 6: not the imaginary history, 'what if Wu had stayed in mourning?', but instead,

His house in the Capital, in the shadow of his home. Peer through the door; it is vacant and no one is there. For three years no one is seen. Misfortune.

Click to expand...

Field says this is the mourning hut in the shadow of the palace, left empty when Wu marches off to war. He doesn't attempt to explain why there should be an omen of misfortune when Wu's campaign against the Shang was a success.

hilary said:

Hm, had Steve already reviewed something of Pankenier's? In which case I can well imagine there might be a feud going on.

Click to expand...

I believe to remember some polemic among Shaughnessy, Pankenier and Marshall about accurately dating the begining of Zhou campaign against the Shang. In my opinion Steve uses to be sarcastic but not aggresive. When I see strong attacks I suspect weakeness of reasons or, if not, envy.

I actually found Pankenier's review via Field's bibliography of secondary sources.

Click to expand...

Pankenier's curriculum has many pdf:

In Academia.edu Pankenier has many downloadable papers even for non-members:

Now... quotation as requested...

Click to expand...

Many thanks, Hilary, I go work with it.

Field says this is the mourning hut in the shadow of the palace, left empty when Wu marches off to war. He doesn't attempt to explain why there should be an omen of misfortune when Wu's campaign against the Shang was a success.

Click to expand...

Maybe the Changes advices not entering into WAR.

Even if written from the Zhou point of view it could have some hidden Shang propaganda o diviner's awareness about that WAR IS SO DESTRUCTIVE FOR BOTH SIDES THAT CANNOT BE RECOMMENDED.

Some wars can be inevitable but never can be desirable.


Best regards,


Charly