Yílǐ zhāngjù 儀禮章句
The Yílǐ, Parsed by Chapter and Section
by 吳廷華 (撰)
About the work
Wú Tínghuá’s 吳廷華 (1682–1755) seventeen-juan early-to-mid Qīng pedagogical edition of the Yílǐ (KR1d0025). The work positions itself as a corrective to the two preceding pedagogical editions: Zhāng Ěrqí’s KR1d0038 Yílǐ Zhèngzhù jùdòu (judged “too narrowly bound to Zhèng’s note”) and Wáng Wénqīng’s 王文清 Yílǐ fēnjié jùdòu 儀禮分節句讀 (judged “with annotation too sparse, treating jùdòu as the sole goal”). Wú divides each chapter into sections (jié 節) and within each section parses the sentences (jùdòu); annotation draws principally on ZhèngJiǎ but also incorporates other accounts with case-judgement notes. Particularly detailed on the mourning rituals (Sāngfú, Shìsānglǐ, Jìxī, Shìyúlǐ).
Tiyao
We respectfully submit that Yílǐ zhāngjù in seventeen juan was composed by Wú Tínghuá of the present dynasty. Tínghuá (zì Zhōnglín, originally named Lánfāng, native of Rénhé) — jǔrén of Kāngxī jiǎwǔ [1714]; career from Zhōngshū shělén through to Fújiàn hǎifáng tōngzhī; in the early Qiánlóng era was recommended for the Sānlǐ compilation. Háng Shìjùn’s Róngchéng shīhuà says Tínghuá after office retired-and-rested in a temple, boring through Jiǎ-and-Kǒng commentaries, composing more than ten juan of Èrlǐ yíyì — today his works include Zhōulǐ yíyì already separately catalogued; this book is named Zhāngjù — perhaps separate Yílǐ yíyì exists, or alternatively renamed as Zhāngjù?
The book takes Zhāng Ěrqí’s Yílǐ Jùdòu as too tightly-bound to Zhèng’s note; takes Wáng Wénqīng’s Yílǐ fēnjié jùdòu as taking jùdòu as the principal aim with too-sparse annotation; therefore reconciles the previous Confucians to supplement the two books’ un-reached. Each chapter divides into sections; each section analyses jùdòu; annotation mostly rooted in ZhèngJiǎ note-and-sub-commentary, also occasionally adopts other accounts with appended case-judgement to bring out [the meaning].
On the sānglǐ (mourning ritual) especially detailed-and-careful. As, Shìsānglǐ “zǔ wèi shìsūn” sub-commentary saying “the grandfather-and-grandson originally not one body; this is the grandfather wearing zhǎn (mourning) for the heir-son, hence on the grandson not heavy-mourning, especially elevating it to dàgōng” — the sub-commentary’s account is not right. Chen Dàliǎnjù’s “āo (parch) yellow-and-millet each two baskets”; Áo Jìgōng holds: “place this replacing the diàn (sacrifice)”; this alone follows the note’s account — holds: “set up to gather ants; remove the āo and the ants also all leave” — a good method indeed.
Furthermore: “Jìxīlǐ jiē mùhéng jiǔ zhī”; the jiǔ should be zhù; using Lúshì jiǔzhūqiáng zhī jiǔ — zhù (pillar) — to refute the note-and-sub-commentary’s wrong reading. Furthermore: “zǔdiàn — host should be in coffin-east; sacrifice is in its south, then also in coffin-east”; note holds “host and sacrifice both in coffin-west” wrong — quite see precision.
Only on sānnián zhī sāng (three-year mourning) over-trusts Máo Qílíng’s thirty-six-month account — not knowing this account originated from Táng Wáng Yuángǎn; at that time was already by ritual-officials rebutted; Yán Ruòqú’s Qiánqiū zhájì refuted especially fully — Tínghuá apparently happened-not-to-investigate. Furthermore: “the tǎnmiǎn of miǎn — suspected of being lining-the-cap” — examining the sub-commentary “zhuā and kuòfà using hemp-cloth from crown-toward-front-crossing-on-forehead — wanting to circle the bun; miǎn also like this — but the cloth’s width is one cùn as a difference; not heard of having lining-the-cap” — his account also forced.
Yet his chapter-divisions and sentence-explications, sub-commentary clear and concise — for classical learning truly not without supplement.
Respectfully revised and submitted, third 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 zhāngjù is the third major early-Qīng pedagogical edition of the Yílǐ (after Zhāng Ěrqí’s KR1d0038 and Wáng Wénqīng’s now-non-Sìkù Fēnjié jùdòu). Wú Tínghuá’s distinctive contribution is the explicit chapter-and-section editorial structure (zhāngjù) which provides more granular reading-aid than Zhāng’s punctuation-only approach. The Sìkù tíyào judges the work meritorious for its careful section-divisions and clear annotation, with particular merit in the mourning-ritual chapters.
The Sìkù editors detail two specific reservations: (1) Wú’s adoption of Máo Qílíng’s 毛奇齡 thirty-six-month sānnián zhī sāng (three-year mourning) reading — a position originally proposed by Táng Wáng Yuángǎn 王元感 and refuted by ritual officials in the Táng, then thoroughly refuted by Yán Ruòqú 閻若璩 in Qiánqiū zhájì 潛邱劄記; (2) Wú’s reading of miǎn (the white silk burial-cap) as having a chènguān (lining-cap), which the sub-commentary explicitly does not support.
The dating “1730–1755” brackets the most plausible composition window during Wú Tínghuá’s mature career and post-retirement work.
Translations and research
No substantial secondary literature located. Treated in surveys of mid-Qīng Yílǐ scholarship.
Other points of interest
The Sìkù editors’ careful tracking of Wú Tínghuá’s three-year-mourning argument back through Máo Qílíng to Táng Wáng Yuángǎn — including the cross-reference to Yán Ruòqú’s refutation — is a representative instance of the late-Qiánlóng court-classicist genealogical method applied to a contemporary scholarly mistake. The editors rebuild the genealogy of the error in order to demonstrate that Wú’s adoption was insufficiently informed.
Links
- Chinaknowledge: http://www.chinaknowledge.de/Literature/Classics/yili.html