Yílǐ shìgōng zēngzhù 儀禮釋宮增注
An Augmented Annotation of the Yílǐ Shìgōng
by 江永 (撰)
About the work
Jiāng Yǒng’s 江永 (1681–1762) one-juan augmented annotation of “Zhū Xī’s Yílǐ shìgōng” — which Jiāng believed to be Zhū Xī’s, but is in fact Lǐ Rúguī’s KR1d0031 (the parallel-text confusion in Zhū Xī’s Dàquán jí having misled later scholars). The Sìkù tíyào notes the misattribution but explains that at the time Jiāng wrote, the Yǒnglè dàdiǎn had not yet revealed Lǐ Rúguī’s authorship; Jiāng’s annotations are therefore framed as expanding “Zhū Xī’s text,” but materially they are augmentations of Lǐ Rúguī’s. The work consists of detailed commentary on Lǐ’s text, with Jiāng’s notes inserted in parenthetical passages following each gloss; the bulk of Jiāng’s contributions are clarifications-and-corrections of received misreadings (e.g., the jiāshì 夾室 reading; the píng zhī jiān yuē níng 屏之間曰宁 reading). The Sìkù editors approve nine-tenths of Jiāng’s interpretations, registering only one or two specific reservations.
Tiyao
We respectfully submit that Yílǐ shìgōng zēngzhù in one juan was composed by Jiāng Yǒng of the present dynasty. Yǒng has Zhōulǐ yíyì jǔyào already catalogued. The book takes Zhū Xī’s Yílǐ shìgōng one chapter (note: the Shìgōng is originally Lǐ Rúguī’s book, mistakenly entered into Zhū Xī’s collected works; when Yǒng wrote this book, the Yǒnglè dàdiǎn had not yet appeared in the world, hence he did not know it was not Zhūzǐ’s brushwork — we now retain the original-book’s designation but attach the explanation here) — and provides detailed annotation, with much exposition-and-correction.
What is slightly differing or has come-and-gone — is one or two passages; what is kǎozhèng densely-precise — occupies nine of ten. As, Zhèng’s note: “the dàfūshì has no left-and-right fáng”; Zhū Xī suspected the dàfūshì also has western fáng but did not decide. Examining the Shī zhèngyì: “Xiāngyǐnjiǔ yì sets the wine-vessel at the fánghù-between; the host-and-guest jointly use it; from-having-no-Western fáng, hence taking the fáng and the shìhù between as the centre”; further the Xiāngyǐnjiǔ lǐ sets the guest-seat at the hùyǒu between, but the Xiāngyǐnjiǔ yì says: “seat the guest at Northwest” — then the dàfūshì’s hùyǒu between is at the west, and the fánghù between is for the proper centre — clear. This is the manifest evidence of dàfūshì having no Western fáng. Yǒng then says the guest seated at the hùyǒu between, the host from above the Eastern stair views it as if at the Northwest, in fact at the North and proper-centre — not knowing the Xiāngyǐnjiǔ yì further says “seat the jiè at the Southwest; seat the zhuàn at the Northeast”; if by Yǒng’s account inferring, then the Xiāngyǐnjiǔ lǐ note’s “host-seat at the Eastern stair upper southwest-facing; jiè-seat at the Western stair upper east-facing — its east-and-west just opposite-facing” — from the host viewing the jiè would be at the west and not at the Southwest — not solid; the Xiāngyǐnjiǔ lǐ’s “zhuàn seated at guest east” — from the host viewing the zhuàn would be at the north and not at the Northeast — its account becomes notably difficult-to-pass. Furthermore the Xiāngyǐnjiǔ yì also says “the host seated at the Southeast” — knowing seating-the-guest-at-Northwest is based on the táng’s Northwest; not the host’s Northwest — clear.
Furthermore the Shī Sīgàn: “Built-residence one-hundred-walls; Western and Southern their hù”; Zhèng’s jiān: “the Son of Heaven’s residence has left-and-right fáng — different from the one-fáng one’s shìhù.” Yǒng then says: “NánDōng their mǔ” means “or Nán their mǔ; or Dōng their mǔ” — same wording as this “Western-Nán their hù”; this is the yànqǐn shìnèi’s sometimes-opening Western hù to reach the Eastern fáng. Examining the yànqǐn Western hù system — not visible in the classics. Yùzǎo: “the gentleman’s residing constantly should be at the hù; lying constantly Eastern-headed” — then the yànqǐn — and the note saying “dānghù is xiàngmíng (facing-the-light)” — then the yànqǐn’s hù is Southern-facing. Even taking the Hàn system to verify — the Hàn shū Gōng Shèng zhuàn says: “Shèng made-bed shìzhōng hù-Western; messenger entered hù, walked-South, faced-South, stood” — if it were the Western-facing hù, then entering-hù one would walk-East. Then the yànqǐn hù all Southern-facing; the same as the zhèngqǐn — Western-facing account is fundamentally without grounds.
Other instances — like saying Dōng-and-Western jiā should not be called jiāshì; the Záji and DàDài lǐ jiāshì two characters indicating the jiā and the shì — referring originally each one place; the zhùshū-readers reading them as one accordingly perpetuating the error; further saying píng zhī jiān yuē níng — is at the road-gate’s-outside píng tree’s-inside; Xíng’s sub-commentary’s previous account holding it correctly-grasped; the latter account further taking it as the road-gate’s-inside is wrong; further saying Lǐ Xún’s Ěryǎ note “níng is at the proper-gate’s-inside two-shú between” — actually has the same meaning as the Shī’s zhù — not the gate-and-píng between’s níng. Examples like these — too many to enumerate; his discrimination-and-correction all has grounds — sufficient to confirm previous people’s errors; sufficient to know it not the same as image-or-shadow plagiarism scholarship.
Respectfully revised and submitted, fourth 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 shìgōng zēngzhù is Jiāng Yǒng’s principal contribution to the Yílǐ shìgōng (architectural-spatial vocabulary) tradition. Jiāng’s annotations expand and correct Lǐ Rúguī’s KR1d0031 base text on multiple specific points — most importantly the question of whether the dàfūshì has both Eastern and Western fáng (Zhèng Xuán’s note: only Eastern; Lǐ Rúguī: arguably both; Jiāng: definitely both, see Yílǐ shìgōng zēngzhù’s extended argument). The Sìkù editors disagree with Jiāng on this specific question (siding with Zhèng Xuán) but acknowledge nine-tenths of Jiāng’s other corrections.
The misattribution issue — Jiāng Yǒng believed his work was a zēngzhù (augmented annotation) on Zhū Xī’s Yílǐ shìgōng, but the Sìkù-era recovery of Lǐ Rúguī’s text from the Yǒnglè dàdiǎn had since shown Zhū Xī’s text to be a parallel transmission of Lǐ Rúguī’s — is explicitly acknowledged in the tíyào and is one of the more interesting cases of attribution-correction in the Sìkù methodology.
The dating “1730–1762” brackets Jiāng Yǒng’s mature scholarly career through his death.
Translations and research
No substantial secondary literature located. Treated in surveys of mid-Qīng Yílǐ spatial-architectural scholarship and in Wǎn-pài history.
Other points of interest
The Sìkù editors’ decision to retain the original title and authorship-attribution while explicitly explaining the misattribution in the tíyào (rather than re-titling the work) is a representative instance of conservative textual practice. The case demonstrates how the Sìkù editors balanced the need for editorial accuracy against the need to preserve the historical witness of how earlier scholars actually engaged with the texts before the Yǒnglè dàdiǎn recoveries clarified attributions.
Links
- Chinaknowledge: http://www.chinaknowledge.de/Literature/Classics/yili.html