欽定禮記義疏

Qīndìng Lǐjì yìshū 欽定禮記義疏

Imperial Imperially-Determined Exposition-and-Commentary on the Book of Rites

by 高宗弘曆 (敕撰)

About the work

The Lǐjì member of the Qiánlóng-period Qīndìng Sānlǐ yìshū 欽定三禮義疏 imperial-commission compendium, in 82 juàn (77 juan of canonical text + commentary, plus 5 juan of appended diagrams), commissioned by Qiánlóng in Qiánlóng 13 (1748) and the third of the three official-Qīng Sānlǐ compendia (with Qīndìng Zhōuguān yìshū KR1d0018 and Qīndìng Yílǐ yìshū KR1d0037). The work uses the same seven-rubric editorial schema (qī lì 七例) as the parallel Zhōuguān yìshū: zhèng yì 正義 (correct meaning), biàn zhèng 辨正 (rectifying), tōng lùn 通論 (comprehensive discussion), yú lùn 餘論 (remaining discussion), cún yí 存疑 (preserving doubt), cún yì 存異 (preserving variance), zǒng lùn 總論 (general discussion). The Sìkù editors take this work — together with KR1d0067 — as the imperial recovery of the older HànTáng commentary line set against the Míng Wǔ jīng dàquán line (Chén Hào → Hú Guǎng).

Tiyao

We respectfully submit that Qīndìng Lǐjì yìshū in eighty-two juan was the imperially-determined-and-fixed Sānlǐ yìshū’s third part of the thirteenth year of Qiánlóng [1748]. The canonical text [in] forty-nine piān is divided-and-re-arranged into seventy-seven juan, with five juan of appended diagrams. Its seven exegetical-rubrics are also identical with the Zhōuguān yìshū.

For the Sānlǐ, [the school of] Zhèng [Xuán] is the specialised authority. Wáng Sù was also a one-generation comprehensive Confucian — broadly examining classical-records, hundreds of [arguments] difficult-to-it, [yet he could] not overcome [the Zhèng tradition]. Latter Confucians’ insights have not even reached [the level of] what [Wáng] Sù discarded — yet on a fragmentary [piece of] knowledge they raise an uproar, condemning Mr Zhèng. [This is what is] never heard about the Way: Hán Yù’s saying about “those who do not measure themselves” — is this not the type? Yet the Zhōuguān and Yílǐ both speak of lǐzhì (ritual-system); the Lǐjì then concurrently speaks of lǐyì (ritual-meaning). Lǐzhì — without kǎozhèng not made-clear; lǐyì — then can be sought-and-pushed by [philosophical] yìlǐ. [The work] broadly gathers from collected sayings on jiāoshè (suburban-altar), yuèwǔ (music-and-dance), qiúmiǎn (fur-and-cap), chēqí (chariots-and-banners), zūnyí (sacrificial vessels), guīchàng (jade-tablets and aromatics), yànyǐn (banqueting), xiǎngshí (offering-feasting), reaching the Yuèlìng, Nèizé etc. míngwù (named-objects) — every one carefully discriminated and decided. Even from the various-philosopher’s secondary [doors] and the hundred-school’s miscellaneous-sayings, those that may respectfully examine ancient institutions — also detail-cite-and-broadly-quote, indirectly-prove-and-cross-comprehend. While the discussion-and-explanation considerably draws on the Sòng Confucians to supplement what the Zhèng annotation did not prepare.

For the Zhōngyōng and Dàxué two piān, Chén Hào’s Jíshuō — because Zhūzǐ edited [them] into the Sìshū — therefore deleted them and did not record them. [This was] truly an absurd cutting of the ancient canon. Now [we] still record the full text to preserve the old recension; only the zhāngjù (chapter-and-sentence breaks) are changed to follow Zhūzǐ — not setting up yìtóng (variants) to dissolve the partisan dispute. Apparently each saying has its own appropriateness; meanings each have their own taking; not constraining-and-keeping to one extreme — and afterwards one sees the supreme refinement of the balance-and-mirror.

As to the imperially-edited various-classics: the Yì does not entirely use the Chéng Zhuàn and the Běnyì but still gives the Chéng Zhuàn and the Běnyì priority; the Shū does not entirely use the Cài Zhuàn but still gives the Cài Zhuàn priority; the Shī does not entirely use the Zhū Zhuàn but still gives the Zhū Zhuàn priority; the Chūnqiū, on the Hú Zhuàn especially much was rebutted-and-corrected and excised, yet still uses the Hú Zhuàn as title-marker, listing it in the order of the Three Zhuàn. Only on the Lǐjì one canon — for Chén Hào’s Jíshuō — [the imperial work only] discards the flaws and records the merits, miscellaneously listing [him] among the various Confucians, not setting [him] at the head. [We] respectfully see [the imperial] judgement [is] essential-and-careful, striving to accord with the public verdict on right-and-wrong — especially sufficient to correct the Hú Guǎng et al. Lǐjì dàquán’s KR1d0060 error of attaching to the school-and-wall, following sound and standing standards.

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 Qīndìng Lǐjì yìshū completes the Qīndìng Sānlǐ yìshū set commissioned by Qiánlóng in 1736 (his accession year) and finished in 1748. With this work, the Qīng court formally and editorially replaced the Míng Wǔ jīng dàquán line of the Lǐjì (Chén Hào → Hú Guǎng) with a new imperial commentary that drew on the older HànTángSòng tradition: Zhèng Xuán’s annotation, Kǒng Yǐngdá’s zhèngyì, Wèi Shí’s KR1d0057 Lǐjì jíshuō, and Wú Chéng’s KR1d0058 Lǐjì zuǎnyán are the principal sources. The seven-rubric apparatus (qī lì) — paralleling the Zhōuguān yìshū and Yílǐ yìshū — distinguishes the editorial register systematically: zhèng yì gives the official correct reading, biàn zhèng / tōng lùn / yú lùn the editorial discussion-registers, cún yí / cún yì the preserved variants, and zǒng lùn the chapter-level summary. This is the most institutionally elaborate commentary apparatus of any imperial-Qīng Lǐjì edition.

The Sìkù tíyào’s sharpest editorial point concerns the Dà xué and Zhōng yōng chapters: Chén Hào’s Lǐjì jíshuō had simply omitted these two chapters on the principle that Zhū Xī had moved them to the Sì shū. The Qīndìng yìshū explicitly restores both chapters to the Lǐjì canonical text — declaring this a correction of “an absurd cutting of the ancient canon” — while taking only the zhāngjù divisions from Zhū Xī (so as to “dissolve the partisan dispute”). This is one of the clearest imperial-court editorial gestures against the YuánMíng Cheng-Zhū-Xué appropriation of the Lǐjì as a Sì-shū-sub-domain.

The further tíyào observation — that this is the only one of Qiánlóng’s imperial classical commentaries that demotes the official YuánMíng commentary from titular position — confirms the editorial seriousness of the Lǐjì yìshū. The Yìjīng still gives the Chéng Zhuàn / Běnyì titular priority; the Shūjīng still gives the Cài Zhuàn; the Shījīng still gives the Zhū Zhuàn; the Chūnqiū still gives the Hú Zhuàn. Only the Lǐjì explicitly demotes Chén Hào from titular position to “the various Confucians”.

The dating is precise: commissioned at Qiánlóng’s accession (the Sānlǐ yìshū commission appears in the early-Qiánlóng court records); the Lǐjì member as the third and last completed in Qiánlóng 13 (1748).

Translations and research

• R. Kent Guy, The Emperor’s Four Treasuries: Scholars and the State in the Late Ch’ien-lung Era (Harvard, 1987) — situates the imperial Sānlǐ yìshū commission in the Qiánlóng court’s classical-scholarship programme.
• Pèng Lín 彭林, Sānlǐ yánjiū rùmén 三禮研究入門 (Fùdàn dàxué chūbǎnshè, 2012) — covers the imperial-Qīng Sānlǐ commentary tradition.
• Sūn Xīdàn 孫希旦, Lǐjì jíjiě 禮記集解 (Zhōnghuá shūjú, 1989) — the major Qīng-evidential Lǐjì commentary that supersedes the Qīn-dìng yìshū for evidential-method work.
• Yáng Tiānyǔ 楊天宇, Lǐjì yìzhù 禮記譯注 (Shànghǎi gǔjí, 1997).

Other points of interest

The Sìkù tíyào’s observation about the editorial demotion of Chén Hào is significant for understanding the trajectory of imperial-Qīng classical scholarship: at the level of the imperial Wǔ jīng canon, Chén Hào is the only YuánMíng guānshū (official examination commentary) authority that the eighteenth-century court was willing to formally demote. Yet even with this demotion, Chén Hào continued to be the actual examination-text de facto down to 1905, since the Qīndìng yìshū was not made the substitute examination text — only the substitute imperial Lǐjì canon. This editorial gap between “imperial canon” and “examination canon” is one of the central tensions of late-imperial Qīng jīngxué.

Links

• Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siku_Quanshu
• Chinaknowledge: http://www.chinaknowledge.de/Literature/Classics/liji.html