周禮疑義舉要

Zhōulǐ yíyì jǔyào 周禮疑義舉要

Lifting Up the Essentials of Doubtful Meanings in the Rites of Zhōu

by 江永 (撰)

About the work

Jiāng Yǒng’s 江永 (1681–1762) seven-juan evidential study of the Zhōulǐ (KR1d0001), part of his broader Sānlǐ and Yílǐ programme. The work merges Zhèng Xuán’s framework with Jiāng’s own original interpretive arguments. The two-juan section on the Kǎogōngjì is regarded by the Sìkù editors as the strongest portion of the work and Jiāng’s particular forte. Jiāng — the founder of the Wǎnpài 皖派 (Anhui school) of evidential scholarship and Dài Zhèn’s 戴震 teacher — applies systematic geometric and mensurational analysis to the Kǎogōngjì’s craft-technology passages, with results that the Sìkù editors judge to surpass the HànTáng commentary tradition on specifically technical questions.

Tiyao

We respectfully submit that Zhōulǐ yíyì jǔyào in seven juan was composed by Jiāng Yǒng of the present dynasty. Yǒng (zì Shènxiū, native of Wùyuán) — this book absorbs Zhèng’s meaning while occasionally setting up new accounts, often hitting on the truth. His exposition of the Kǎogōngjì in two juan particularly shows specialty; in this book it is the strongest. As, for instance, on the classical text “the wheel of six chǐ six cùn, the zhǐ (shaft-axis) high three chǐ three cùn, with the zhěn (cross-bar) and fú (axle-block) added, four chǐ” — examining the classical text the zhěn circumference is one chǐ one cùn; the fú circumference is not stated. Combining zhěn and fú to obtain the seven cùn of height is quite hard to fit. Zhèng’s note is silent; later Confucians have not solved it.

Yǒng holds that the zhěn squared-diameter is two cùn seven-and-a-half-fēn; from the axle-centre upward to the zhěn surface totals seven cùn; the gǔ (hub) enters under the chassis on left and right, the gauge being on the gǔ, must be slightly higher to allow the gǔ to rotate; so above the gǔ there must be fú to support it. The fú circumference and diameter have no standard text; the Zhōurén’s “at the rabbit, the circumference within the zhōu-length is one tenth, square diameter three cùn six fēn”; the zhōu is also under the chassis; what supports the chassis must have rabbit-circumference equal to circumference-at-rabbit. The half-axle of three cùn two fēn, plus the fú squared-diameter of three cùn six fēn, gives a total height of five cùn eight fēn; computing by dense-rate the gǔ half-diameter is just under five cùn one fēn; the gap between this and the gauge is just over seven fēn, which can accommodate gǔ rotation.

Adding to the five cùn eight fēn the rear zhěn projecting above the fú is approximately one cùn two fēn; total height is seven cùn. The chassis thickness, equal to the upper zhěn, is also one cùn two fēn by ratio. The rear zhěn under the chassis remains one cùn five fēn; the zhōu-heel is bowed-and-curved to support it. The “calculation including zhěn and fú totalling seven cùn” should be calculated from the zhōu (shaft) — for the zhōu is on the axle and must abut the chassis bottom, with the two flanking fútù (rabbit blocks) also flush with the zhōu. So we know the zhōu’s circumference at the rabbit must equal the rabbit-circumference. The classical text after does not mention rabbit-circumference because it is implied through the zhōu; this account in fact supplements what Kāngchéng failed to reach.

Only consulting the Shìmíng: “the zhěn lies horizontally in front, like a sleeping bed having a pillow; zhěn is héng (horizontal); horizontal at the bottom; the jiàn board lies above like a jiànxí (matting). It seems the chassis-board is on top and the zhěn is below. Yǒng holding that the zhěn surface is flush with the chassis-board does not seem to fit. Yet under the chassis-board there is still one cùn five fēn of zhěn — so the account does not strictly conflict.

Examining the Shuōwén: ”□ (a character) the chariot rabbit’s underbelly leather” — so where the rabbit grips the gǔ there is also leather supporting between. Yǒng’s calculation has the rabbit’s distance from the gǔ at three cùn six fēn, but the rabbit-underbelly leather thickness has not been calculated in. This is also slightly unrigorous. The total addition is very small, no harm to the loose computation.

Furthermore the classical “three-thirds of its suì (chassis-depth), one in front, two behind, to bend its shì (handle-bar)” — the system of shì is detailed in Kǒng Yǐngdá’s sub-commentary on Qūlǐ: that the chariot-box length is four chǐ four cùn, three-thirds split front-one-behind-two; horizontally one mù below the chariot-bed three chǐ three cùn is shì; further on top of shì two chǐ two cùn horizontally one mù is jiào. Sòng Lín Xīyì simply says “róu means bending the wood and making it straight.” Yǒng holds: bending two pieces of wood from two sides to meet in front, all of the chariot-front three-thirds-of-suì may be called shì; shì-height three chǐ three cùn with the shì-deep counted-in; the two-ends connect with the two-flanking standing zhǐ; in military observation one foot can stand on the front-shì, one foot on the side-shì — Zuǒzhuàn’s Chángsháo battle “mounted shì and looked” is this. If jiào were on the shì, how could one mount shì to look? If shì in the front three-thirds-of-suì horizontally was a wood-frame, then within the dim-board the chariot-outside cannot see shì, how could the record say “if there is a chariot, must see its shì”?

Examining Zhèng’s note: “the shì of the war-chariot is one chǐ four-and-two-thirds cùn deep” — so the classical text “one in front” is all shì, totalling one chǐ four cùn-and-some, then the note can say “shì deep.” If only at the centre of the two flanking-pieces a horizontal wood is added and called shì, then there is no front or rear shì; how could the note also use depth-and-shallowness to measure shì? Kǒng’s sub-commentary holding the horizontal wood added inside the chariot-box has not understood Zhèng’s note’s “shì deep” two-character meaning. Furthermore Zhèng’s note: “jiào the two-flanks emerging upward beyond shì” — the two-flanks are the two box-boards. To emerge upward beyond shì and measured by the two-flanks, the two jiào are in the upper-board of each box, plain. Hence the Shìmíng says “the jiào is on the box, not on the shì” — clearly evidence. Kǒng’s sub-commentary is plainly mistaken.

As to the classical text saying “róu,” all mean bending it to make it crooked — and Lín Xīyì conversely says bending-it-straight, even more lacking-in-investigation. None reaches Yǒng’s account, which is solid-and-evidenced. Other citations are precise — generally all of this kind. His investigation of antiquity may be called detailed.

Respectfully revised and submitted, fifth month of the forty-third year of Qiánlóng [1778].

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 yíyì jǔyào is one of the principal evidential studies of the Zhōulǐ in the eighteenth-century Wǎnpài tradition. Jiāng Yǒng’s particular strength — the systematic geometric and mensurational analysis of the Kǎogōngjì’s craft-technology passages — represents the most rigorous quantitative engagement with the Kǎogōngjì prior to the modern period. The Sìkù tíyào details Jiāng’s reconstructions of the chariot’s zhěnfú (cross-bar and axle-block) seven-cùn total height (with detailed geometric calculation supplementing what Zhèng Xuán’s note had failed to reach) and his reading of the shì (handle-bar) as spanning the entire front three-thirds of the chariot-box (rather than being a single horizontal wood as Kǒng Yǐngdá’s Qūlǐ sub-commentary had held).

The dating “1730–1762” brackets Jiāng Yǒng’s mature evidential career through his death.

The work belongs to the same Wǎnpài tradition that produced Jiāng’s own Lǐjīng gāngmù 禮經綱目 (88 juan, on the ritual classics) and his Yílǐ shìlì 儀禮釋例, and that was extended into the next generation through Jiāng’s student Dài Zhèn 戴震 (1724–1777).

Translations and research

• Benjamin A. Elman, From Philosophy to Philology (Council on East Asian Studies / Harvard University Asia Center, 1984; 2nd ed. UCLA, 2001) — places Jiāng Yǒng at the founding of the Wǎn-pài.
• Joseph Needham, Science and Civilisation in China, vol. 4.2 (mechanical engineering) — uses Jiāng Yǒng’s Kǎogōngjì analyses extensively.
• Wén Rénjūn 聞人軍, Kǎogōngjì yìzhù 考工記譯注 (Shànghǎi gǔjí 1993) — modern critical edition that consistently engages with Jiāng Yǒng’s Yíyì jǔyào on the technical passages.

Other points of interest

The Sìkù tíyào’s detailed geometric reconstruction of Jiāng Yǒng’s chariot calculation — half-axle three cùn two fēn + fú squared-diameter three cùn six fēn = five cùn eight fēn total height for the lower assembly, plus zhěn projection of one cùn two fēn = total seven cùn, with gǔ half-diameter just under five cùn one fēn leaving a seven-fēn clearance for gǔ rotation — is one of the more sustained pieces of mathematical-evidential argument in the Sìkù tíyào and a model of Qiánlóng-era technical-philological scholarship.

Links

• Chinaknowledge: http://www.chinaknowledge.de/Literature/Classics/zhouli.html