禮記析疑

Lǐjì xīyí 禮記析疑

Analysis of Doubts in the Book of Rites

by 方苞 (撰)

About the work

A late-Kāngxī to Qián-lóng-period systematic Lǐjì commentary in 46 juàn by Fāng Bāo 方苞 (1668–1749) — the founder of the Tóngchéng 桐城 prose school and a major early-Qīng Cheng-Zhu Neo-Confucian. The work is the Lǐjì member of Fāng Bāo’s Sānlǐ set (KR1d0021 Zhōuguān jízhù, KR1d0041 Yílǐ xīyí, KR1d0072 this work), and shares its general method: blending received commentary with the author’s own readings, organised section by section through the canonical text. The Sìkù tíyào characterises the work as “blending the old sayings, deciding by his own meaning” (rónghuì jiùshuō, duàn yǐ jǐyì), with substantial original interpretation and several places where Fāng Bāo’s textual conjecture goes beyond standard kǎojù practice into the more controversial territory of suggesting that whole passages of the Lǐjì are cuòjiǎn (mis-bound bamboo strips) or interpolations and should be deleted.

Tiyao

We respectfully submit that Lǐjì xīyí in forty-six juan was composed by Fāng Bāo of the present dynasty. [Fāng] Bāo has Zhōuguān jízhù, already catalogued. This book also blends old sayings, decides by his own meaning. As [in] Wén Wáng shì zǐ, [he] takes Dà sī chéng as precisely Dà sī yuè — discriminating the zhùshū’s [reading of] Zhōuguān’s Dà yuè zhèng as Dà sī yuè and the Shī shì as Dà sī chéng as wrong. [In] Jiāotèshēng on the jiāo xuè dà xiǎng xīng xù jiàn bì yòng yuè jiàn xuè shí chái sequence — one [section] — he says: where the canon-and-commentary speak of jiāo lǐ and contain xiàn jiàn (offering libations), all are matters of offering [grain to the] god of grain. His discussion is most clear-and-pointed.

[On] the matter of xiǎngdì having music while shícháng having no music — one [section] — [he] takes Jīngnán Mr Féng’s saying, citing the Chǔcí poem to take [it] that [the Cháng sacrifice] should have music inwardly. [In] Nèizé’s Tiānzǐ zhī gé — [he] says the shū takes gé as páochú (kitchen) — wrong; for gé is what [is used] to place fruits-and-vegetables, sugar-and-cake. Further [in] the fùtún [section] — the zhùshū explains [it] as tún whole and yáng split — not knowing this is tún and zāng common-bowl, yáng with gāo (lamb). [In] the Sāngfúxiǎojì on címǔ yǔ qièmǔ bù shìjì — one [section] — [he] says: a concubine-son’s son setting up the nǐmiào [shrine] may sacrifice to the father’s birth-mother. [In] Yú shì bù shè dàifu, shì shè dàifu wéi zōngzǐ one [section] — [he] says: when a dàifu goes-out for public-affairs and family-people shè the sacrifice, in propriety [one] should send the close kinsman-younger-brother; even one without rank may shè — there is no shè with the meaning of zōngzǐ. [On] Jì zhī rì yī xiàn one [section] — [he] says: in sacrificial-ritual xiànchóu (offering-and-pledging) intermingle, by which the spirits-and-men are harmonised-and-connected. It is unsuitable [for] the xiànyǐn not yet ended and ranking the various ministers to interrupt it. Only because of the temporary lending in the miào — therefore simplifying its ritual and using one xiàn. The current annotation says yī xiàn yī yìn shī (one offering one rinse-tomb-keeper); the shū says its jié should be at the back; the editor mistakenly listed [it] at the front. All carry their own seeing — sufficient to constitute one Lǐ-school explanation.

[Some other places — like taking zhí yàn diàn all as shūyàn (loose-wild-goose) not yànhóng zhī yàn (the wild-goose of yànhóng) — not knowing the rite uses the yàn as zhì (gift) takes its not-losing-the-time and able-to-keep-rank; if it were shūyàn what is there of keeping-rank? Further [taking] the shēnyī chúnmèi yuán — chún meaning yuán — yuán word suspected interpolation: [Fāng] Bāo’s intent is “should be chúnmèi chúnyuán”. Examining Zhèng’s annotation: “yuán is xī (slanted).” Kǒng’s shū: the Jìxī says: “in the breadth called yùn; in the lower called xī”… The yuán word originally has its own canonical-rule; not a interpolation-character. Examples like this cannot avoid arbitrary-decision.]

The most untrainable [point]: [the work] separately kǎodìngs the Wén Wáng shì zǐ one piān, deleting the Wén Wáng yǒu jí down to Wǔ Wáng jiǔshísān ér zhōng one passage; further deleting bù néng lì zuò jiàn zuò ér zhì eight characters and the YúXiàShāngZhōu yǒu shībǎo yǒu yíchéng one passage; the Zhōugōng kàng shìzǐ fǎ yú Bóqín one passage; the Chéngwáng yòu down-to bùkě shèn yě one passage; the mò shìzǐ zhī jì one passage. Now, the Lǐjì is a [genre of] mixed-up-recording former Confucian sayings, not a single one. Yet deleting-and-fixing the Six Classics — only the sage can do [it]. Mèngzǐ doubted Wǔchéng — only doubted, did not delete. Hán Yù doubted the Mǎnjǐng and the Hécháng — also did-not delete. Cài Yuándìng doubted the Sītóngmò qí, etc.; [he] also did-not delete. Xié Liángzuǒ doubted yìn xī shèn jiè wǔbù, etc.; also did-not delete. As to the WángBǎi shī shū’s precedent, then more [like] the Lǚzhèng yújiā [behaviour]. [Fāng] Bāo apparently is not one of the WángBǎi school — yet his attempting to delete-and-fix is not in fact a methodologically-defensible act.

Yet [Fāng] Bāo’s various-readings — much hits the meaning. Even where [he] is wrong on details — does not damage the broad-thrust. Therefore [we] still record [the book].

[etc.]

Respectfully revised and submitted, [date].

General Compilers: Jǐ Yún 紀昀, Lù Xīxióng 陸錫熊, Sūn Shìyì 孫士毅.

Abstract

Fāng Bāo’s Lǐjì xīyí — together with his parallel KR1d0021 Zhōuguān jízhù and KR1d0041 Yílǐ xīyí — completes his Sānlǐ commentarial set. The dating bracket 1700–1749 reflects the long composition span across Fāng Bāo’s adult life; the work cannot be tied to a precise year. Fāng Bāo lived an unusually long scholarly life by early-Qīng standards (1668–1749), and his classical works represent the steady accumulation of mid-Kāngxī to early-Qián-lóng court-Confucian scholarship.

The Sìkù tíyào’s mixed verdict reflects the Sìkù-editorial position on Fāng Bāo’s Sānlǐ as a whole: substantial original interpretation, well-grounded in considerable points; but methodologically over-reaching in its willingness to delete passages of the canonical text on the conjecture of cuòjiǎn or interpolation. The tíyào invokes a series of historical precedents — Mèngzǐ doubting the Wǔchéng, Hán Yù doubting the Mǎnjǐng and Hécháng, Cài Yuándìng doubting the Sītóngmò qí, Xié Liángzuǒ doubting the yìn xī shèn jiè — to make the point that the orthodox classical-scholarship tradition expresses doubt without deleting; only Wáng Bǎi 王栢’s notorious deletion of Shī jīng poems is given as a negative model. Fāng Bāo’s deletion of seven passages of the Wén Wáng shì zǐ chapter is judged as falling into the Wáng Bǎi pattern: scholarly editorial intervention beyond what the orthodox method allows.

Despite these methodological reservations, Fāng Bāo’s individual interpretations are widely praised in the tíyào, particularly his readings of the Jiāotèshēng on xiàn jiàn / xī zhōng (the offering-libation sequence in the suburban sacrifice), the Nèizé’s gé (storage-cabinet rather than kitchen), and the Sāngfúxiǎojì on the címǔ qièmǔ shrine question. The work is included in the Sìkù as a substantial scholarly contribution, with its methodological excesses noted but not used as a basis for exclusion.

Translations and research

• David S. Nivison, “The Choices of Liang Ch’i-ch’ao (1873–1929)”, in Arthur F. Wright (ed.), Confucianism in Action (Stanford UP, 1959) — discusses Fāng Bāo’s reception in the Qīng Tóng-chéng tradition.
• Qīng shǐ gǎo 清史稿 j. 290 (biography of Fāng Bāo).
• Tu Wei-ming, “Yen Yuan: From Inner Experience to Lived Concreteness”, in Wm. Theodore de Bary (ed.), The Unfolding of Neo-Confucianism (Columbia, 1975) — situates Fāng Bāo in early-Qīng intellectual history.
• Pèng Lín 彭林, Sānlǐ yánjiū rùmén 三禮研究入門 (Fùdàn dàxué chūbǎnshè, 2012) — covers Fāng Bāo’s Sānlǐ set.

Other points of interest

The Sìkù editorial response to Fāng Bāo’s textual deletions — invoking the principle that “doubting without deleting” is the standard method even for the major scholarly precedent-cases (Mèngzǐ, Hán Yù, Cài Yuándìng, Xié Liángzuǒ) — is a useful witness to the eighteenth-century Qīng evidential-school’s stance on textual kǎozhèng. The Sìkù tíyào tradition will accept conjectural emendation but draws a sharp line at deletion of canonical text — a distinction that effectively defines the boundary between kǎojù and biànwěi (forgery-criticism) methods.

Links

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