From Divination to Virtue and Action: The Confucian Hermeneutic Approach to the Yijing Through Decisive Phrases (Duanci 斷辭)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Since the authorship of Yijing has long been a topic of controversy (attributable to King Wen of Zhou, Duke of Zhou, Confucius, etc.), it is appropriate to use a phrase like "the Confucian hermeneutic approach to the Yijing" instead of "Confucius's hermeneutic approach to the Yijing". If the author affirmatively attributes the authorship of "the decisive phrases (duanci)" to Confucius, then he/she needs to briefly expound the point at the beginning of the article, either in the main text or in a footnote. 

p.9 "classical Chinese literature, such as the Shijing (Book of the Songs)"----The Shijing is not just a great work of classical literature, but also a long-claimed Confucian classic (among the five Confucian classics, Shi, Shu, Li, Yi, Chun Qiu).

Author Response

Reviewer 1 — Comment 1

Since the authorship of Yijing has long been a topic of controversy (attributable to King Wen of Zhou, Duke of Zhou, Confucius, etc.), it is appropriate to use a phrase like "the Confucian hermeneutic approach to the Yijing” instead of "Confucius's hermeneutic approach to the Yijing". If the author affirmatively attributes the authorship of "the decisive phrases (duanci)" to Confucius, then he/she needs to briefly expound the point at the beginning of the article, either in the main text or in a footnote.

Response

We agree and have systematically replaced references to “Confucius’s approach” with “the Confucian hermeneutic approach” to reflect broader traditions rather than singular attribution. These revisions involve the first and last sentences of the abstract, keywords, the second paragraph of the introduction (this is also where the endnotes have been updated), the third paragraph of the introduction, the fourth paragraph of the introduction, the sixth paragraph of the introduction, the paragraph ‘Building upon this ontological grounding’ in Section II, the first paragraph of Section III, the sixth paragraph of Section III, the twelfth paragraph of Section III, and both paragraphs of Section V.

Additionally, the issue of authorship is now clarified in a new endnote within the introduction, replacing the earlier endnote. The new text reads:

“Although the Yijing (Book of Changes) is widely regarded as one of the most important Confucian classics and forms a core part of the Confucian worldview, its authorship remains a subject of scholarly debate. Traditionally, the text is attributed to King Wen of Zhou, the Duke of Zhou, and Confucius, each believed to have contributed to different parts of the work. However, there is no reliable evidence confirming whether Confucius was familiar with the text. Modern scholarship generally agrees that the Yijing was compiled over an extended period by multiple authors. Therefore, for the purposes of this discussion, we use the term “authors of the Yijing” as a general reference. (See. e. g. Legge 1963, pp. xiv-xv; Adler 2022, p. 17; Rutt 1996, p. 34).

Reviewer 1 — Comment 2

1. 9: classical Chinese literature, such as the Shijing (Book of the Songs)––The Shijing is not just a great work of classical literature, but also a long-claimed Confucian classic (among the five Confucian classics, Shi, Shu, Li, Yi, Chun Qiu).

Response

This comment has been fully addressed. The revised sentence now reads:

“This principle finds further resonance in the Shijing 詩經 (Book of Songs), which is not merely a foundational work of classical Chinese literature but one of the Five Classics (Wu Jing 五經). There, tardiness—being “slow”, “arriving late”, or failing to “come to court”—is consistently portrayed as detrimental, especially in contexts of political and moral obligation.”

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

            This is a highly sophisticated article that makes a significant contribution to textual interpretation theory. There are two major points that should be addressed, one almost trivial and the other requiring some rewriting.

            The first point is that the author’s decision to attribute both the original text (Zhouyi) and the appendices of the Yijing to Confucius himself is nothing short of baffling. As the author must surely know, no modern scholar accepts these traditional attributions. At the very least this decision should be explained. But what is really necessary is to completely eliminate all references to Confucius (although not Confucianism). There is absolutely no justification for phrases such as “As Confucius stated” (line 50), “Confucius’s interpretive orientation” (65), “initiated by Confucius” (94), and all the others. It is actually doubtful that Confucius ever referred to the Yijing, despite how Analects 7:17 is sometimes interpreted (see, e.g. Adler 2022, 17; Rutt 1996, 34). And, as is well-known, the appendices date from after his lifetime, so the story that he wrote or edited them cannot be true.

            The second point concerns the article’s central terms, the “decisive statements” (duanci 斷辭). As far as I can tell, all the references to these statements refer only to “auspicious” (ji) and “ominous” (xiong), but according to Richard Rutt there are at least two more, “dangerous” (li 厲) and “misfortune” (jiu 咎) (Rutt 1996, 133). Why are these not mentioned? There should be a substantial paragraph added to the first section describing this category of terms, their significance, and their relationship to other classes of terms, such as omens, with references to other discussions, such as Rutt 1996, 131-135 (Richard Rutt, The Book of Changes [Zhouyi]: A Bronze Age Document, which is surprisingly not included in the References). Other translations of the term duanci would also be helpful.

            A few minor points:

• Line 51: … the Appended Remarks (hereafter cited as Treatise)
• 129-131: explain what you mean by “historical” divinations and realities – also line 387
• 172-73: something is needed to make this a sentence
• 473: there is no line 9 – it is 9 (yang) in the fourth position
• 644-45: Add a sentence or two expanding on how the phrases act as a hermeneutic hinge. This is the kernel of the paper.

Author Response

Reviewer 2 — Comment 1

(…) the authors’ decision to attribute both the original text (Zhouyi) and the appendices of the Yijing to Confucius himself is nothing short of baffling. As the author must surely know, no modern scholar accepts these traditional attributions. At the very least this decision should be explained. But what is really necessary is to completely eliminate all references to Confucius (although not Confucianism). There is absolutely no justification for phrases such as “As Confucius stated” (line 50), “Confucius’s interpretive orientation” (65), “initiated by Confucius” (94), and all the others. It is actually doubtful that Confucius ever referred to the Yijing, despite how Analects 7:17 is sometimes interpreted (see, e.g. Adler 2022, 17; Rutt 1996, 34). And, as is well-known, the appendices date from after his lifetime, so the story that he wrote or edited them cannot be true.

 

Response

Reviewers 1 and 2 share this concern and we are grateful for the correction. We have removed all phrases that attribute authorship or interpretive orientation of the Yijing or its appendices to Confucius. Specifically, we have revised or deleted the expressions cited by the reviewer. And these have been replaced with references to the Confucian hermeneutic tradition or Confucian approaches where appropriate.

 

These revisions involve the first and last sentences of the abstract, keywords, paragraphs 2-6 of the introduction (this is also where the endnotes have been updated), the paragraph ‘Building upon this ontological grounding’ in Section II, the first paragraph of Section III, the sixth paragraph of Section III, the twelfth paragraph of Section III, and both paragraphs of Section V.

Additionally, the issue of authorship is now clarified in a new endnote within the introduction, replacing the earlier endnote. The new text reads:

 

“Although the Yijing (Book of Changes) is widely regarded as one of the most important Confucian classics and forms a core part of the Confucian worldview, its authorship remains a subject of scholarly debate. Traditionally, the text is attributed to King Wen of Zhou, the Duke of Zhou, and Confucius, each believed to have contributed to different parts of the work. However, there is no reliable evidence confirming whether Confucius was familiar with the text. Modern scholarship generally agrees that the Yijing was compiled over an extended period by multiple authors. Therefore, for the purposes of this discussion, we use the term “authors of the Yijing” as a general reference. (See. e. g. Legge 1963, pp. xiv-xv; Adler 2022, p. 17; Rutt 1996, p. 34).

 

Reviewer 2 — Comment 2

 

The second point concerns the article’s central terms, the “decisive statements” (duanci 斷辭). As far as I can tell, all the references to these statements refer only to “auspicious” (ji) and “ominous” (xiong), but according to Richard Rutt there are at least two more, “dangerous” (li 厲) and “misfortune” (jiu 咎) (Rutt 1996, 133). Why are these not mentioned? There should be a substantial paragraph added to the first section describing this category of terms, their significance, and their relationship to other classes of terms, such as omens, with references to other discussions, such as Rutt 1996, 131-135 (Richard Rutt, The Book of Changes [Zhouyi]: A Bronze Age Document, which is surprisingly not included in the References). Other translations of the term duanci would also be helpful.

 

Response

We are grateful to Reviewer 2 for raising this important issue. We have now clarified the scope and function of Duanci (decisive phrases) in a newly added endnote within the introduction. This note addresses the terminological and interpretive range of the term, referencing key translations by Adler and Rutt and explicitly identifying the eleven decisive expressions found in the Yijing, including 'li' (dangerous) and 'jiu' (misfortune), as Reviewer 2 rightly indicated. The note also explains why we adopt Adler’s translation, “decisive phrases,” in light of the article’s broader theme—From Divination to Virtue and Action—which highlights the prescriptive, rather than merely prognostic, role of these judgements in guiding ethical action. This contextual framing is now fully articulated and supported by the relevant literature, including Rutt 1996, Adler 2020, Smith 2014, and Williams 2025 (now all added to the references). We have added a detailed footnote as follows:

 

“Adler translates Duanci (斷辭) as “decisive phrases,” while Rutt renders it as “prognostic.” This paper argues that, given the Yijing’s perceived role in guiding virtuous action, the core function of the Duanci is not primarily to record past prognostic results or predict future ones, but to deliver normative guidance essential for ethical decision-making and practical action. For this reason, we adopt Adler’s translation, “decisive phrases,” which aligns with interpretations such as “decision statement” used by other scholars. In the Yijing, there are eleven such decisive phrases, including terms like auspiciousness (ji 吉) and ominousness (xiong 凶), dangerous (li 厲), and misfortune (jiu 咎) and so on. In the Yijing, auspiciousness and ominousness form the core, while the remaining nine express varying degrees of them, depending on the image (xiang 象) of the hexagram (gua 卦) or the time (shi 時) and position (wei 位) of the specific line (yao 爻). (See e.g., Adler 2020, p. 294; Rutt 1996, pp. 132–133; Williams 2025, p. 31; Smith 2014, p. 149)”

 

Reviewer 2 — Minor Comments

1. 51 Citation of “Appended Remarks”

Clarified as: “Treatise on the Appended Remarks (Xici zhuan 繫辭傳, hereafter cited as Treatise, Part A, Section 11)”

 

1. 129–131 / 387 Explain what you mean by ‘historical’ divinations and realities.

We have rewritten to clarify:

“This passage underscores the nature of the Yijing: its functions not only as a compendium of divinatory judgments grounded in socio-historical contexts but also as a metaphysical framework for guiding action. The decisive phrases of auspicious and ominous, like the divinatory events they codify, reflect not literal historical records but structured reflections on real-world experiences-what might be termed ritualized representations of past decision-making.” And:

“From an epistemological perspective, understanding the Yijing through its key phrases involves two intertwined processes. First, it requires engaging with the divinatory judgements as culturally embedded expressions of past experience-forms of symbolic knowledge that reflect both social memory and metaphysical orientation toward the Dao. Second, it involves the internalizing of the value system, which subtly shapes one’s spiritual cultivation and decision-making in the external world. This interplay between virtue and action in the Yijing illustrates that how recognizing the Dao can serve as a foundation for concrete judgements and self-cultivation in daily life.”

1. 172–173 Fragment: something is needed to make this a sentence.

Corrected to: “Unlike textual phrases (ci 辭), which convey meaning through discursive language, images (xiang 象) in the Yijing operate as liminal symbols that bridge metaphysical principles and tangible forms.”

9. 473 There is no line 9.

The expression has been corrected to “specifically the [line 4] 9 in the fourth,” following the format used in Adler’s translation. All other references to specific lines have also been revised accordingly to align with Adler.

1. 644–645 Add a sentence or two expanding on how the phrases act as a hermeneutic hinge.

We added: “Rather than merely predicting outcomes, these phrases interpret specific human situations in light of the Dao, drawing on metaphysical patterns to guide ethical reflection and action. In this way, they transform symbolic meaning into moral orientation, enabling the reader to progress from divination to self-cultivation and timely action.

An interpretation of the Yijing centered on decisive phrases thus illuminates the hermeneutic methodology of the Confucian tradition, in which understanding is inseparable from the cultivation of virtue and the enactment of appropriate action.”

Additional Editorial Enhancements

All footnotes and references have been checked for completeness and accuracy.

Updated bibliography to include: Rutt 1996, Legge 1963, Williams 2025.