Zhōulǐ zuǎnxùn 周禮纂訓
A Compiled-and-Glossed Rites of Zhōu
by 李鍾倫 (撰)
About the work
Lǐ Zhōnglún’s 李鍾倫 (1663–1706) twenty-one-juan early-Qīng Zhōulǐ commentary, composed during his Kāngxī-era career as a non-office-holding jǔrén travelling with his father Lǐ Guāngdì 李光地 (Grand Secretary). The work covers only the five surviving ministries (omitting the Kǎogōngjì on the grounds that it is a Hàn supplement, not original Zhōu material), drawing on the zhùshū and supplementing with the author’s own glosses (xùnyì 訓義). Posthumously published by Lǐ Zhōnglún’s son Lǐ Qīngfù 李清馥 (Magistrate of Guǎngpíng) with a postface dated 1757. The work belongs to the same Lǐ-family Ānxī Sānlǐ-scholarship tradition as Lǐ Guāngpō’s KR1d0019 Zhōulǐ shùzhù and Lǐ Guāngdì’s Zhōuguān bǐjì. Lǐ Zhōnglún draws on his Beijing-circle discussions with Méi Wéndǐng 梅文鼎, Hé Chuò 何焯, Xú Yòngxī 徐用錫, Wáng Zhīruì 王之鋭, and Chén Wàncè 陳萬策 — particularly visible in Lǐ’s competence on calendrical-and-mensurational topics.
Tiyao
We respectfully submit that Zhōulǐ zuǎnxùn in twenty-one juan was composed by Lǐ Zhōnglún of the present dynasty. Zhōnglún (zì Shìdé, native of Ānxī) was a jǔrén of guǐyǒu of Kāngxī [1693], who died before taking office. The book ranges from the Tiānguān through the Qiūguān in detailed compilation of the zhùshū with added glossatorial meaning — only the Kǎogōngjì is left unannotated, on the principle that it is the supplement made by the Héjiān Xiànwáng and not the ancient classic of the Duke of Zhōu. The book has a postface by his son, Magistrate of Guǎngpíng, [Lǐ] Qīngfù dated dīngchǒu of Qiánlóng [1757]: that Zhōnglún first received the Three Rituals from his uncle Guāngpō; in guǐyǒu of Kāngxī rose to jǔrén and went to the capital; afterwards daily attended his father Guāngdì in Beijing; when Guāngdì went out to Education Commissioner of Shùntiān then again to Governor of Zhílì for more than ten years Zhōnglún always followed and received his instruction; he also engaged extensively with Méi Wéndǐng of Xuānchéng, Hé Chuò of Chángzhōu, Xú Yòngxī of Sùqiān, Wáng Zhīruì of Héjiān, and his fellow-townsman Chén Wàncè in mutual discussion. So his learning has its sources.
What he interprets quite captures the Zhōuguān’s broad meaning. Only on names-and-things and measurement matters he does not dwell deeply, hence verification is often less than detailed. For instance, on Jīnchē the zhòngdí xīmiàn zhūzǒng, yàndí lèmiàn huìzǒng, ānchē diāomiàn yīzǒng all “have róng and gài” — Zhèng’s note: “zǒng is made of silk; placed on the horse’s bridle and stretched between the two ears and the two horse-stops; the chēhéngguǎn should also have it; róng is the chānchē — Shāndōng calls it the cháng; only the gài is like today’s small-cart gài.” All have róng and gài; the zhòngdí, yàndí, and ānchē mean the bì (curtain). The ānchē without bì means without ornament. Zhōnglún says: “zǒng should only apply to the horse fitted to the chariot, the meaning has no other purchase” — examining Cài Yōng’s Dúduàn: “the fēilíng is made of yóutí (oiled silk gauze) eight cùn wide trailing on the ground; left painted cānglóng, right painted báihǔ; tied at the axle-head”; the Hòu Hàn shū Yúfú zhì: “the imperial chariot has zhòngyá, bānlún, and shēnglóng fēilíng” — note citing Xuē Zōng’s note to Dōngjīng fù: “fēilíng is yóutí eight cùn wide, trailing the ground, tied at the axle-head.” What is here called yóutí is what Zhèng’s note calls “zǒng made of silk”; what is called axle-head is what Zhèng’s note calls guǎn. So the fēilíng is the zǒng on the chariot — and Zhōnglún’s claim that zǒng only ornaments the horse is mistaken.
[The tíyào continues for many more passages of detailed argumentation about the róng enclosure, the jǐngtián method, military-establishment numbers, and tǔguī shadow-measurement] — among these other things, his discrimination of dìjiá, shèjì, and xuéxiào are all detailed evidential investigations. Again, the Sīmǎ fǎ says one géchē has three jiǎshì and seventy-two foot-soldiers; Zhōnglún cites Cài’s account, that one chē is not just three jiǎshì and seventy-two foot, but is the light-chariot driven by horses, with another twenty-five men on the rear zhòngchē; checking the Xīn shū’s gōngchē of seventy-five, qiánjù one team, zuǒyòu jiǎo two teams, shǒuchē one team, chuīzǐ ten, shǒuzhuāng five, jiùyǎng five, qiáojí five — totalling twenty-five; gōngshǒu two-vehicle total one hundred. And Wèi Liáozǐ Wǔzhìlìng “in the army the system: five for wǔ, wǔ mutually-protect; ten for shí, shí mutually-protect; fifty for shǔ, shǔ mutually-protect; one hundred for lǘ, lǘ mutually-protect — starting from five and ending at one hundred.” The army system from one chē upward — these all clearly evidence one chē of one hundred men, sufficient to demonstrate his accuracy. He is also clear on calendrical-mensurational technique: explaining the Dà Sītú tǔguī method as “sixty-some lǐ the shadow already differs by one cùn” is also obtained by actual measurement — not the empty talk of the lecture-master sort.
Respectfully revised and submitted, eleventh month of the forty-sixth year of Qiánlóng [1781].
General Compilers: Jǐ Yún 紀昀, Lù Xīxióng 陸錫熊, Sūn Shìyì 孫士毅. General Reviser: Lù Fèichí 陸費墀.
Abstract
The Zhōulǐ zuǎnxùn is the second major Lǐ-family Ānxī Zhōulǐ commentary (after Lǐ Guāngpō’s KR1d0019) and is distinguished by Lǐ Zhōnglún’s competence on the technical-quantitative aspects of the Zhōulǐ — calendrical calculation, tǔguī (gnomon) shadow-measurement, military-establishment counts, jǐngtián land-measurement. The Sìkù tíyào details a substantial argument about Lǐ Zhōnglún’s reading of the Jīnchē’s róng and zǒng (chariot ornaments), where the editors hold that Lǐ erred by restricting zǒng to the horse-bridle alone — but they nevertheless approve his work on the more substantive technical questions, citing in particular his demonstration that one géchē corresponded to one hundred soldiers (rather than the seventy-five usually inferred from a literal reading of Sīmǎ fǎ).
The omission of the Kǎogōngjì — on the principle that it is a Hàn supplement, not original Zhōu material — is in the same spirit as the Qīndìng Zhōuguān yìshū’s KR1d0018 fánlì (which restored Zhōuguān as the title and expelled the Kǎogōngjì from the Dōngguān position). Both reflect the early-Qīng court-classicist position on the integrity of the original Zhōulǐ.
Composition belongs to Lǐ Zhōnglún’s adult Beijing-period (1693 jǔrén through his death in 1706); posthumous publication by his son Lǐ Qīngfù in 1757.
Translations and research
No substantial secondary literature located. Discussed in surveys of the Lǐ-family Ān-xī Sānlǐ tradition.
Other points of interest
The Sìkù editors’ praise of Lǐ Zhōnglún’s calendrical-mensurational competence — “obtained by actual measurement, not the empty talk of the lecture-master sort” — is a striking endorsement of the empirical-evidential approach to classical questions and reflects the Beijing-circle influence of Méi Wéndǐng on early-Qīng Sānlǐ scholarship. This empirical orientation is one of the distinguishing marks of the Lǐ-family Ānxī tradition.
Links
- Chinaknowledge: http://www.chinaknowledge.de/Literature/Classics/zhouli.html