Yílǐ shùzhù 儀禮述註
A Transmissive Annotation of the Yílǐ
by 李光坡 (撰)
About the work
Lǐ Guāngpō’s 李光坡 (1651–1723) seventeen-juan early-Qīng commentary on the Yílǐ (KR1d0025), part of his complete Sānlǐ shùzhù set (with KR1d0019 Zhōulǐ shùzhù in 24 juan and KR1d0071 Lǐjì shùzhù in 28 juan). The work consolidates Zhèng Xuán’s note and Jiǎ Gōngyàn’s sub-commentary into a zǒngcuō dàyì (general-grasping) presentation, trimming the HànTáng commentary for length and supplementing with discussions of various scholars’ divergences on particular passages. The Sìkù tíyào judges the work as “exemplary in its field” (shuōlǐ zhī chūjīn 說禮之初津) but flags several specific over-trims and under-considered citations of secondary scholarship — particularly Yáng Fú’s 楊孚 reading of the Gōngshí dàfū “alcohol-and-watered-rice” passage, where Lǐ adopts Yáng without checking against ZhèngJiǎ’s reading.
Tiyao
We respectfully submit that Yílǐ shùzhù in seventeen juan was composed by Lǐ Guāngpō of the present dynasty. Guāngpō has Zhōulǐ shùzhù already catalogued. The book takes Zhèng’s note and Jiǎ’s sub-commentary, zǒngcuō dàyì and trims their wording, also occasionally takes the various scholars’ differing accounts and appends them at the back. The note-and-sub-commentary’s original wording sometimes is rightly trimmable. As, Shìguānlǐ — “the diviner holds the fan to remove the upper dú”; note: “what is now used to store bow-and-arrow is called dúwán”; examining the Zuǒzhuàn Zhāo 25: “the duke’s followers loosened armour, holding ice and squatting”; Dù’s note: “ice — dúwán”; some say “dúwán — arrow-quiver”; the Fāngyán: “bow-quiver called jiàn; some called dúwán”; the Hòu Hàn shū Nán Xiōngnú zhuàn: “now bringing variegated silk five hundred bolts; bow, dúwán one, arrows four-shots; sending to the chányú”; the Guǎngyǎ writes 皾㿪. This adjacent borrowing of dúwán to clarify the dú character’s gloss — not the classical proper meaning; cutting it acceptable.
But for instance Shìguānlǐ “the assistant washes in the fáng and side-pours the lǐ (sweet wine)”; note: “the assistant pours; the guest is honoured and does not enter the fáng” — Guāngpō trims these two phrases — then the guest does not self-pour and uses the assistant; meaning becomes unclear; trimmed where should not be trimmed. Furthermore the note carries gǔwén jīnwén — most relating to classical-meaning. As, Shìsānglǐ “the jué (decorations) attached to zhōu (gauntlet)”; note cites gǔwén zhōu writes wǎn (碗); examining Guǎnzǐ Dìzǐzhí: “receiver must hold wǎn; soup not done by hand”; the Lǚshì běnwèi chapter relates Tāng’s wǎn; Gāo Yòu’s note: “wǎn — ancient hand-wrist character” — by this then using the gǔwén’s wǎn to verify today’s wǎn — meaning even more clear-and-evident; yet Guāngpō universally trims them — also too sparse.
His broader use of various scholars’ words also sometimes lacks careful examination. As, Gōngshí dàfū lǐ says: “alcohol, watered-rice — wait at Dōngfáng” — note: “alcohol first speaks ‘drink’ clearly indicates not the xiànchóu (offering-and-toasting) alcohol”; further: “the zǎifū right-holds zhì, left-holds fēng; advance and place east of the dòu” — note: “food has alcohol — to honour the guest.” Guāngpō cites Yáng Fú’s account: “the upper ‘alcohol-and-watered-rice waits at Dōngfáng’ sub-commentary says: ‘alcohol-and-watered-rice both as mouth-rinse’; this ‘advance and place east of the dòu’ sub-commentary further says: ‘watered-rice as mouth-rinse; not using alcohol; the host still arranges it — to honour the guest’ — using-honour-the-guest two accounts contradicting.” Now examining Jiǎ’s previous sub-commentary […] [the discussion continues for several more paragraphs].
But, e.g., Shìguānlǐ “the mother bows-and-receives; the son bows-and-sends” — Guāngpō says: “the mother bows-and-receives — receiving the dried-meat and bowing — not bowing-the-son”; the meaning is most apt. This bow-and-receive is like Dàshèlǐ “the host washes the xiànggū and ascends to pour the offering — east-north facing, offering to the duke; the duke bows-and-receives” then bows-and-receives the gū — not the duke first bowing his qīngdàfū. Further as Tèshēng kuìshí lǐ “the host washes the jué and ascends to pour-and-rinse the corpse; the corpse bows-and-receives” then bows-and-receives the jué — not the ancestor first bowing his zǐsūn. All such instances are quite acceptable. Further as Sāngfú jì “the husband-of xiōngdì-served, the wife reduces one degree” — Wàn Sīdà uses this to verify the sister-and-brother-in-law have mourning service; Guāngpō does not adopt his account — also has deep selection.
The Sānlǐ learning declined in the Sòng and almost vanished in the Míng; Yílǐ especially rarely studied in the world; almost as old-paper to be discarded. Note-on-it sparse-as-a-few-houses; even Hǎo Jìng’s Wánjiě and others — slightly notable in the world — also broadly yǐngxiǎng (vague-feeling) speculation, freely-arising personal opinion. Apparently Zhōulǐ still admits wángbà discussion; Lǐjì still admits jìngchéng (respect-and-sincerity) discussion; Yílǐ is entirely measurement-and-procedural-text — not empty-words spreadable. So lecture-house people avoid not-discussing it. Guāngpō’s compilation though jewels-and-flaws not concealing each other, yet sub-commentary explication concise-and-clear, allowing the student not to suffer difficulty-of-reading — also sufficient as the explaining-ritual’s first ferry.
Respectfully revised and submitted, tenth 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 Yílǐ shùzhù is the Yílǐ component of Lǐ Guāngpō’s complete Sānlǐ shùzhù set and the second major Lǐ-family Ānxī Sānlǐ commentary. The Sìkù editors approve the work as one of the few accessible early-Qīng Yílǐ texts in an era when the Yílǐ “had almost vanished as a discipline.” The Sìkù tíyào engages two specific cases in detail: (1) Lǐ’s over-aggressive trimming of Zhèng’s gloss-notes (Shìguānlǐ’s “lǐ” passage), and (2) Lǐ’s adoption of Yáng Fú’s reading of the Gōngshí dàfū “alcohol-and-watered-rice” passage without adequate cross-checking against ZhèngJiǎ. On the positive side, the editors approve Lǐ’s reading of the Shìguānlǐ “mother bows-receives” passage (where Lǐ correctly identifies the mother bowing as bowing the dried-meat object, not the son) and Lǐ’s selective rejection of Wàn Sīdà’s KR1d0039 argument for sister-and-brother-in-law mourning service.
The general assessment — “exemplary in its field” — places this work alongside Zhāng Ěrqí’s KR1d0038 as the indispensable early-Qīng pedagogical introduction to the Yílǐ.
Translations and research
No substantial secondary literature located. Discussed in surveys of early-Qīng Sānlǐ scholarship and the Lǐ-family Ān-xī tradition.
Other points of interest
The Sìkù tíyào’s explicit statement that “Sānlǐ learning declined in the Sòng and almost vanished in the Míng; Yílǐ especially rarely studied — almost as old-paper to be discarded” — is one of the more dramatic editorial summaries of the post-Sòng Yílǐ studies trajectory and helps explain why the editors approve early-Qīng pedagogical works (Lǐ Guāngpō, Zhāng Ěrqí) that they would otherwise have judged below standard.
Links
- Chinaknowledge: http://www.chinaknowledge.de/Literature/Classics/yili.html