Xuélǐ zhíyí 學禮質疑
Doubts and Questions on the Study of Ritual
by 萬斯大 (撰)
About the work
A short early-Qīng Sòng-school Sānlǐ miscellany in 2 juàn by Wàn Sīdà 萬斯大 (1633–1683), the elder member of the Yáojiāng 姚江 brothers Wàn Sīdà and Wàn Sītóng 萬斯同 (the latter the principal compiler of the Míng shǐ). The work is methodologically of the late-Míng / early-Qīng yìlǐ-and-kǎozhèng synthesis — drawing on Sòng-period commentary while using historical and textual evidence to argue against the HànTáng zhùshū tradition. The Sìkù tíyào is broadly hostile, picking out a series of Wàn Sīdà’s distinctive positions for refutation, including his reading of the Lǔ jiāo sacrifice as solely a winter-solstice rite (against the canonical reading that distinguishes jiāosì from qígǔ), his placement of the dàshè (great altar of the soil) at the northern suburb against the canonical reading that places it within the capital, and his claim that shì (low-rank gentlemen) cannot be dàzōng (chief of a clan).
Tiyao
We respectfully submit that Xuélǐ zhíyí in four juan was composed by Wàn Sīdà of the present dynasty. [Wàn] Sīdà has Yílǐ shāng, already catalogued.
[The Sìkù gives a series of objections to Wàn’s specific positions, in each case citing canonical or near-canonical evidence:]
[He] takes the Lǔ jiāo as only the winter-solstice one rite; qígǔ (praying-for-grain) is not called jiāo; from the Lǔ usurpatory practice of the winter-solstice jiāo, the ruler-and-ministers entrusted [it] to qígǔ in order to lighten the matter. Later men [not understanding] the jiāo-and-qígǔ distinction took the Lǔ as qígǔ. Examining: in Xiānggōng seven Zuǒ zhuàn, Mèng Xiànzǐ says: “the jiāo sacrifices Hòujì in order to qígǔ; affairs qǐzhé (insect-emergence) and then jiāo; jiāo and afterwards plough.” Huángōng five [year], “qiū dà yú” — the Zuǒshì zhuàn says: “recording untimely-ness. All sacrifices: qǐzhé and then jiāo; dragon-appearance and then yú” — agreeing with Mèng Xiànzǐ’s words. [Wàn] Sīdà both does not believe the Zuǒ shì; further on the Shī xù’s “Hàotiān yǒu chéngmìng” being a jiāosì tiāndì and not speaking of *qígǔ” — sets up this exposition. Not knowing the DàDài Lǐ Gōngfú piān records jiāo zhù “chéng tiān zhī shén, xìng gān fēng yǔ, shù huì bǎi gǔ, mò bù mào zhě” — then the jiāo concurrently qígǔ’s clear-evidence. The Jiāyǔ — although coming-out from depending-on-something — yet [it] is in every case linking-and-stitching old hearings; its Jiāowèn piān states: “until the qǐzhé month then again qígǔ to the Shàngdì”; Wáng Sù’s annotation says: “qǐzhé and then jiāo; jiāo and then plough” — with the Zhèng [Xuán] and Dù [Yù] two schools especially fitting. [Wàn] Sīdà alone establishes a creative argument — not [right].
[Wàn] Sīdà further says: the dàshè jìdì is at the northern-suburb; the wángshè qígǔ is in the state-centre. Now examining the Wǔjīng tōngyì: the dàshè is outside the central gate; the wángshè is in the jítián (cultivated-field). The Kǒng [Yǐngdá] and Jiǎ [Gōngyàn] shū and the Tōngdiǎn in every case ancestor-follow this exposition. Further the Zuǒ zhuàn Mǐngōng second-year zhuàn: “between the two shè — for the ducal-house support” — Dù Yù’s annotation: “the Zhōu-shè and the Bó-shè — between the two shè — the court-government’s executives’ positions”; Yǐngdá says: “Lǔ is Zhōu’s various-lord; therefore the state-shè is called the Zhōu-shè.” Then the position of the state-shè is the position of the court-government’s executives — its being inside the central gate is unquestionable: the various-lords’ state-shè is the same as the Son of Heaven’s dàshè. The Zhōushū Zuòluò piān says: “set up qiūzhào (mound-altar) at the southern-suburb, with Shàngdì paired-by Hòujì; the sun-moon-stars-and-spheres and former-kings all participated-in-eating; the various lords received command from Zhōu therefore building the dàshè in the state-centre” — state-centre and southern-suburb listed together — then the dàshè not at the suburb but at the state [centre] is knowable. What [Wàn] Sīdà says is also clearly an error.
[Wàn] Sīdà further says: shì are only xiǎozōng, not able to be dàzōng — because shì have no ancestral temple. Now examining the Sāngfúxiǎojì: “shì do not shè (substitute for) dàifu; only the zōngzǐ of the shì may shè the dàifu”. Further Xúnzǐ says: “therefore the wáng is heaven of the Tàizǔ; the various lords do not dare destroy the Dàshè; the dàifu and shì have chángzōng”; Yáng Liàng’s annotation says: “those who continue [as] descendants of the biézǐ and are taken by clan-people as constant ancestor — hundred-generations not-shifting dàzōng”. Based on this: shì may also be dàzōng — clearly. Further the Sāngfúxiǎojì says: “the concubine-son does not sacrifice the shāng (untimely-dead) and the heir-less, [these] following from the grandfather fùshí (joining-in-eating)” — Zhèng Xuán’s annotation: “the zōngzǐ’s grand-uncles without heirs make a shàn sacrifice to them”. Kǒng Yǐngdá’s shū: “if the zōngzǐ is shì, [he] has no great-grandfather temple — therefore the grand-uncles without heirs make a shàn sacrifice to them”. Further the Zēngzǐ wèn says: “if the zōngzǐ dies, after announcing at the tomb then sacrifice at the home” — Zhèng’s annotation: “sacrifice at home — perhaps without a temple”. Kǒng’s shū: “sacrifice at home — perhaps the zōngzǐ having no rank, [his] family having no temple — sacrifice at the concubine-son’s house” — this allows that there are zōngzǐ without temple. Now [Wàn] Sīdà says: only those with the shǐzǔ temple can be dàzōng — pushing his exposition: not only shì cannot be dàzōng — by the Jìfǎ the dàifu only have great-grandfather temple — would the dàifu also not be able to be dàzōng?
[The tíyào continues with several more such criticisms and concludes:]
In general, [Wàn] Sīdà’s Xuélǐ zhíyí — although [it has] freshness-and-novelty — [its] points of disagreement with the canonical-and-commentarial tradition are mostly without [sound] basis. Yet his discussions of those traditional readings he agrees with are clear-and-firm, and the work has its uses for the Sānlǐ student.
Respectfully revised and submitted, [date].
Abstract
Wàn Sīdà’s Xuélǐ zhíyí is a useful but methodologically limited early-Qīng Sānlǐ miscellany. The Sìkù tíyào’s detailed objection list — covering the Lǔ jiāo / qígǔ distinction, the dàshè placement, the shì-as-dàzōng question, and several other specific positions — is unusually long and represents the editorial verdict that Wàn Sīdà’s freshness of viewpoint is not sufficiently anchored in evidential method. The dating bracket 1660–1683 covers Wàn Sīdà’s adult scholarly career through his death; the work cannot be tied to a precise year.
Wàn Sīdà’s elder brother Wàn Sītóng (1638–1702) was the principal compiler of the imperial Míng shǐ and one of the most distinguished early-Qīng Hàn-historians; his younger brother Wàn Sībǎi 萬斯備 also served as a Sòng-school commentary-author. The Yáojiāng Wàn family was one of the major early-Qīng Sòng-school Confucian houses, descended through the Liú Zōngzhōu / Huáng Zōngxī tradition. Wàn Sīdà’s Sānlǐ corpus — comprising this Xuélǐ zhíyí, the Yílǐ shāng KR1d0039, and several smaller monographs — represents the family’s contribution to the early-Qīng Sānlǐ commentary tradition.
Translations and research
- Qīng shǐ gǎo 清史稿 j. 481 (biography of Wàn Sī-dà and his brothers).
- Lynn A. Struve, The Ming-Qing Conflict, 1619–1683: A Historiography and Source Guide (Association for Asian Studies, 1998) — biographical context for the Yáo-jiāng Wàn family.
- Pèng Lín 彭林, Sānlǐ yánjiū rùmén 三禮研究入門 (Fùdàn dàxué chūbǎnshè, 2012) — covers the early-Qīng Yáo-jiāng Sānlǐ tradition.
Other points of interest
The Sìkù tíyào’s extensive engagement with Wàn Sīdà’s positions — even where the editors firmly reject them — illustrates the scholarly seriousness of Wàn’s interventions. Even where wrong, Wàn Sīdà raises questions that require sustained evidential refutation rather than dismissal — and this is part of the productive role of the yìlǐ-school within high-Qīng Sānlǐ scholarship: forcing the evidential-school to articulate its positions explicitly.
Links
- Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wan_Sida
- Chinaknowledge: http://www.chinaknowledge.de/Literature/Classics/sanli.html