Yílǐ xīyí 儀禮析疑
Analyzing the Doubts in the Yílǐ
by 方苞 (撰)
About the work
Fāng Bāo’s 方苞 (1668–1749) seventeen-juan late-life commentary on the Yílǐ (KR1d0025), restricted to passages where Fāng identifies an interpretive doubt requiring detailed analysis (xīyí 析疑). Passages without doubt are passed over silently, including the original classical text. Fāng wrote in his old age that he had read the Yílǐ through eleven times and devoted serious effort to it; the work is his fullest Yílǐ contribution. The Sìkù tíyào takes Fāng’s Sānlǐ learning to be deeper on the Zhōulǐ (cf. KR1d0021 Zhōuguān jízhù and KR1d0072 Lǐjì xīyí) but acknowledges the Yílǐ xīyí as a substantial work, with the editors highlighting both Fāng’s lapses (the Shìguānlǐ kuēxiàng reading, the Shìhūnlǐ nàzhēng misreading) and his contributions (the Shìxiāngjiànlǐ defence against the editorial-opinion attempting to read it as having a separate yànlǐ; the Pìnlǐ analysis of the gōng dā zàibài).
Tiyao
We respectfully submit that Yílǐ xīyí in seventeen juan was composed by Fāng Bāo of the present dynasty. Bāo has Zhōuguān jízhù already catalogued. The book’s general aim is to lift the Yílǐ’s doubtful passages and detail-discriminate them; what is not doubtful, including the classical text, is not recorded. Bāo on Sānlǐ learning, the Zhōulǐ is somewhat deeper. In late life he himself said that he had treated the Yílǐ eleven times — used effort genuinely diligent — yet also vigorous in self-confidence.
As, Shìguānlǐ “zībùguān, kuēxiàng” (the zī-cloth cap with kuēxiàng hanging) — Zhèng Kāngchéng read kuē as kuǐbiàn’s kuǐ; Áo Jìgōng held: with one zī-cloth strip enclosing the cap as kuēxiàng; another with one object piercing it; the two complements further attaching the cord. Recent Yílǐ expositors mostly use his account. Bāo holds: already having jiè (hair-ornament) to bind the hair, no need to use zī-cloth to enclose; according to the classical text uses cyan-cord as zī — behind attaching to kuēxiàng and front tying at the two complements to bind under the chin. Not knowing Zhèng Kāngchéng read kuē as kuǐ — though character-changing — but separately notes “in the xiàng there is huì” — sub-commentary saying “two ends both make huì; separate cord piercing-the-huì-middle to tie it.” The Guǎngyùn glosses huì as kuēlèi; the Lèipiān says huì — knot. Then Zhèng’s this note can be largely relied upon: clear there is kuēxiàng with cloth as a knot, then attaches the cord. Áo Jìgōng’s account still has un-clarified portions; Bāo then departs from Áo even further.
Shìhūnlǐ “nàzhēng xuánxūn shùbó” — Bāo says: “the gift-presentation procedure not detailed — why? Because shìshùrén (commoner) all-pass-through; people-all-know it.” But the classical text from “lǚpí” downward already says “as nàjí ritual” — so it is not because people-pass-through-it that is abbreviated. Furthermore shùbó as ten duān — detailed in Zhōulǐ Zhèng’s note — Lǐjì Zájì note — ten gè are shù; two duān opposite-rolled to make one liǎng. Bāo only writes “holding one liǎng to convey words” — then “one liǎng” not knowing what language refers to.
Yǒusīchè “yòuzǔ” two characters — apparently total-opening of sheep left-shoulder, left-back-leg downward; lower paragraph “zuòzǔ” then opens sheep-lung-and-other-things. Yet Bāo holds: the previous text has yòu and zǔ, this is interpolation; the result not matching with the lower step zǔ — all from not careful examination.
Yet his use of effort is already deep; expositions also fairly numerous. On Shìxiāngjiànlǐ discriminating the note’s “the guest reverse-visit had yànlǐ” as wrong; discriminating the zhānghóu (bow-target) bottom-rope’s wording — why visible in Xiāngshè but not loaded in Dàshèyí’s reason — all by Zhōulǐ understanding to make pass. On Pìnlǐ “gōng dā zàibài; ǎizhě chū lì yú ménzhōng yǐ xiàngbài” — held to be waiting-the-duke-already-bowing then return-still-waving-cloth; on Jìnlǐ hóushì jìn yú wéimén zhī wài zàibài — explicates that the messenger does not reciprocate as the king’s command not yet announced not daring to receive bows ritual — all carefully heart-and-bodily-acknowledged matching with classical-meaning.
Other matches comparably are quite many; checking the entire book — broadly — jewels more than flaws.
Respectfully revised and submitted, tenth 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 xīyí is Fāng Bāo’s principal contribution to Yílǐ scholarship and the second of his three Sìkù-admitted Sānlǐ works (after the Zhōuguān jízhù KR1d0021, before the Lǐjì xīyí KR1d0072). The selective-doubt-analysis editorial method — passing over passages without doubt and intensively analysing those with — represents an alternative to the line-by-line zhùshū approach and to the chapter-essay approach of Wàn Sīdà (KR1d0039). The Sìkù tíyào judges the work as predominantly meritorious (“jewels more than flaws”) and devotes substantial space to the most important specific arguments.
The dating “1720–1749” brackets Fāng Bāo’s mature scholarly career through his death; the Yílǐ xīyí belongs to his late life when he could write of his eleven readings of the Yílǐ.
The work belongs to the same broader early-Qīng court-classicist current as the Lǐ-family Ānxī Sānlǐ tradition (KR1d0019, KR1d0020, KR1d0040) and the Zhāng Ěrqí critical-edition (KR1d0038) — but Fāng’s selective-essay method is methodologically distinct from both. As with Fāng’s Zhōuguān jízhù, the work is restrained where Fāng’s Wàngxī jí essays on the same texts are speculative; the contrast between Fāng’s two registers of Yílǐ writing is one of the more interesting cases of intra-author methodological variation in eighteenth-century classical scholarship.
Translations and research
No substantial secondary literature located. Treated in surveys of Fāng Bāo’s Sānlǐ scholarship and the Tóngchéng-pài tradition.
Other points of interest
The Sìkù editors’ detailed critique of Fāng’s reading of the Shìhūnlǐ nàzhēng xuánxūn shùbó passage — including the cross-reference to Zhèng Xuán’s Zhōulǐ note and the Lǐjì Zájì note for the technical meaning of shùbó (束帛) as ten gè (個) bundled into five liǎng (兩) two-roll units — is a model of late-Qiánlóng evidential cross-referencing. The case demonstrates how the Sìkù editors used Fāng’s own Sānlǐ method against him on specific passages where he had not adequately followed it.
Links
- Chinaknowledge: http://www.chinaknowledge.de/Literature/Classics/yili.html