儀禮集說

Yílǐ jíshuō 儀禮集說

Collected Explanations of the Yílǐ

by 敖繼公 (撰)

About the work

Áo Jìgōng’s 敖繼公 (fl. late 13th – early 14th c.) seventeen-juan Yuán-period commentary on the Yílǐ (KR1d0025), completed in Dàdé 5 (1301). One of the principal Yuán-period engagements with the Yílǐ and the most substantial post-Sòng critical reassessment of Zhèng Xuán’s canonical annotation. Áo’s autograph preface judges Zhèng’s notes “more flawed than sound” and proposes a method of selective retention: keep what is sound, replace the flawed with material from the sub-commentary, the Lǐjì, earlier Confucians, and Áo’s own original interpretation. Áo also doubts the attribution of the Sāngfú zhuàn to Zǐxià. Despite this anti-Hàn polemical framing, the actual work is judicious in execution, with each chapter ending in a zhèngwù kǎobiàn 正誤考辨 (correcting-errors-and-investigating) section. The Sìkù editors praise the work as far more restrained than Wú Chéng’s KR1d0034 Yílǐ yìjīng in respect for the inherited canonical text.

Tiyao

We respectfully submit that Yílǐ jíshuō in seventeen juan was composed by Áo Jìgōng of the Yuán. Jìgōng (zì Jūnshàn, native of Chánglè) settled at Wúxīng. Zhào Mèngfǔ once received instruction from him; afterwards on the recommendation of JiāngZhè píngzhāng Gāo Yànjìng he was appointed Xìnzhōu jiàoshòu. The book was completed in xīnchǒu of Dàdé [1301]. Its autograph preface says: “Zhèng Kāngchéng’s note has more flaws than soundness; I delete what does not fit the classic. Where the meaning is incomplete I take from the sub-commentary, from the records, or from the earlier Confucians’ accounts to supplement; where still incomplete, I append my own one-acquired insight.” He also doubts the Sāngfú zhuàn’s violating classical meaning is not Zǐxià’s composition — both unable to escape the late-Southern-Sòng habit of attacking Hàn Confucians.

Yet within Zhèng’s note he records what he accepts and does not attack-and-rebut what he does not accept; he has no mind of fault-picking, no thought of universal triumph. Apparently Jìgōng on ritual is rather deeply versed; what he disagrees with the old account on does not exceed difference of opinion, each setting out his own attainment — initially not stamping-his-feet to compete for fame. So unlike those who never witnessed the zhùshū’s face but merely echo the side-fight.

Furthermore, Zhèng’s note is concise and replete with ancient phrasing; Jiǎ Gōngyàn’s sub-commentary still does not bring out each gloss fully. Jìgōng alone investigates each character, with the goal of fluently developing the import — really able to bring something out. So this need not be detrimental to the discrepancy.

The end of each juan separately appends zhèngwù kǎobiàn discussing word-and-sentence quite in detail — knowing he is not merely posturing in empty terms. The Sāngfú zhuàn one chapter — because it incorporates the Jì text and so was made after the Jì — and his suspicion that Zhèng Kāngchéng scattered it under the classic-and-record without daring to move the original sequence; further, the records of the chapters after thirteen — Zhū Xī’s Jīngzhuàn tōngshì all cuts up the wording and assigns it under classical-text passages. Jìgōng holds that the various chapters’ accounts have some specially set up for one passage, some set up for two passages, some set up for several passages — and others showing other rituals beyond classical-text intent — and dares not move-and-pluck the wording, for fear of failing the record-author’s intent. Self-comparing to “rather than the Lǔ Nánzǐ’s not learning, learning Liǔxiàhuì’s curl-up.” He specially writes a postface at the end. So Jìgōng’s learning still has the precision-and-strictness of the previous Confucians — fundamentally unlike Wáng Bǎi or Wú Chéng’s seizing the brush to alter the classic.

Respectfully revised and submitted, eleventh month of the forty-fourth year of Qiánlóng [1779].

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 Yílǐ jíshuō is the most substantial Yuán-period commentary on the Yílǐ and the most extensive post-Sòng reassessment of Zhèng Xuán’s canonical Yílǐ annotation. Áo Jìgōng’s editorial method — select and retain Zhèng’s accepted readings; supplement the rest from sub-commentary, Lǐjì, earlier Confucians, and original interpretation — produces a comprehensive working Yílǐ commentary that is both anti-Hàn in framing and judicious in execution.

The Sìkù tíyào contrasts Áo Jìgōng favourably with both Wú Chéng (whose KR1d0034 Yílǐ yìjīng freely re-edits the canonical text) and Wáng Bǎi 王柏 (whose Sòng-period text-emendations the editors also disapprove). Áo’s specific decision to not re-edit the Sāngfú zhuàn despite his attribution doubts, and to not re-arrange the post-thirteen chapter records despite Zhū Xī’s example of doing so, is highlighted as evidence of his “previous Confucians’ precision-and-strictness.”

Áo’s autograph preface (the Yílǐ jíshuō yuán xù dated Dàdé xīnchǒu = 1301, included at the head of the work) is one of the more substantive Yuán-period statements of Yílǐ methodology. It includes Áo’s argument that the Yílǐ’s seventeen chapters are essentially a zhūhóu (princely-state) ritual book — explicitly designed by the Duke of Zhōu for the feudal lords, not for the king — with detailed evidential demonstration: of the seventeen chapters, nine treat zhūhóu zhī shì (princely-state gentleman) ritual, two treat zhūhóu zhī dàfū (princely-state grandee), four treat zhūhóu (princely-state) themselves, and only the Jìnlǐ treats the king-and-princely-state interaction.

Translations and research

• The Yílǐ jíshuō is regularly cited in modern critical editions of the Yílǐ (Sūn Yírǎng tradition; Wāng Wénjǐn standard edition).
• Pèng Lín 彭林, “Áo Jìgōng Yílǐ jíshuō yánjiū” 敖繼公《儀禮集說》研究, Zhōngguó zhéxué shǐ (1998) — modern critical assessment.

Other points of interest

Áo Jìgōng’s intellectual location — pupil teaching Zhào Mèngfǔ and recommended for office by Gāo Yànjìng — places him at the centre of the early-Yuán HángzhōuWúxīng artistic-scholarly establishment. The fact that the Yílǐ jíshuō emerged from this cultural moment, rather than from the more conventional academic centres in the JiāngxīHúnán Dàoxué lineage, is worth noting: it illustrates that the Yuán-period engagement with the Sānlǐ extended beyond the orthodox Zhū Xī-school disciples to figures embedded in the broader cultural elite of the Jiāngnán region.

Links

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