Renlun Datong Fu: Attribution, Xue Yannian’s Commentary and Volume Counts

*Renlun Datong Fu* (《人倫大統賦》) is a physiognomy work. Its Siku version names the Jin author Zhang Xingjian (張行簡) and the Yuan commentator Xue Yannian (薛延年). Introducing it requires separating the verse text, commentary and later bibliographical assessment. Calling it a “science of the body’s five elements” would obscure those distinctions.

Revised 2026-10-24: the basis of the attribution, the commentary’s dated preface and the differing volume labels are now explained. General claims of practical efficacy and cross-validation with other divination systems have been removed.

The basis for the attribution

The Siku bibliographical notice reports that Zhang’s biography in the *Jin History* does not list this title. It also reports an unattributed entry in the *Qianqingtang Shumu*, whereas the *Yongle Dadian* material names Zhang. The editors accepted the attribution after also considering the date of Xue’s preface.

This is the Siku editors’ account of their evidence and their conclusion. It does not mean this review has independently inspected every early witness. An accurate introduction should make that evidential layer explicit.

The commentary and its preface

The notice gives Xue’s courtesy name as Shouzhi (壽之). The preface is dated Huangqing 2, 1313. That dates the prefatory statement in the available text; it should not be reused as the exact year Zhang composed the underlying work.

The preface describes pronunciation notes and collected explanations attached to the verse, and mentions facial diagrams. Readers should distinguish these explanatory layers instead of assigning every expanded argument to the original author. See the notice and preface.

One juan, or upper and lower sections?

The notice catalogues the work as one *juan*. The public transcription nevertheless presents upper and lower divisions. A catalogue entry and the arrangement of an individual textual witness should not be forced into a single universal count. Identify the edition and its actual headings when describing a copy.

What makes it worth reading?

The preface discusses bones and complexion within a framework of status, wealth, intelligence and longevity. The Siku assessment is not unqualified praise: it recognises concision but also criticises exaggeration and excessive commentary. That tension provides a useful starting point for study.

Compare the verse, commentary and editorial criticism, asking how their categories reflect historical ideas about bodies and social order. Such study does not require accepting physiognomic predictions. Traditional five-phase terminology should not be translated directly into conclusions from physiology, psychology or statistical forecasting.

LamjinLab treats the work as historical material, with attribution and edition questions retained. Related reading appears in the physiognomy index.

Checked sources

• Siku notice, preface and section list.
• Full transcription and lower-section page. These do not replace a leaf-by-leaf comparison with a scanned witness.