Dúlǐ zhìyí 讀禮志疑
Notes on Doubts While Reading the Ritual Classics
by 陸隴其 (撰)
About the work
A six-juan early-Qīng Sānlǐ miscellany by Lù Lǒngqí 陸隴其 (1630–1693), one of the principal early-Qīng Cheng-Zhu scholar-officials and the only Qīng-period scholar to be enshrined in the imperial Confucian temple (pèixiǎng kǒngmiào) — a major court honour. Lù Lǒngqí read the Sānlǐ zhùshū together with Sòng-period commentary and noted, section by section, the points of disagreement and apparent inconsistency, with his own judgements arrived at by what the tíyào characterises as “balancing on Zhūzǐ’s writings, striving to obtain the centre” (zhézhōng yú Zhūzǐ zhī shū, wùdé qí zhōng 折衷於朱子之書, 務得其中). The work is methodologically a Cheng-Zhu Sānlǐ miscellany rather than a kǎozhèng monograph; the Sìkù tíyào notes its limitations relative to the focused-evidential tradition but credits its scrupulous attention to specific points of textual difficulty.
Tiyao
We respectfully submit that Dúlǐ zhìyí in six juan was composed by Lù Lǒngqí of the present dynasty. [Lù] Lǒngqí has Gǔwén Shàngshū kǎo, already catalogued.
This compilation [is] because the Sānlǐ’s books are mostly the result of Hàn-Confucian collection-and-compilation; what they record of past-and-present canonical-rituals — from Míngtáng, Qīngmiào, jí, xiōng, jūn, bīn, jiā down to míngwù qìshù (named-objects and numerical-counts) details — when mutually checked-and-collated, often have jǔyǔ bùhé (incompatibilities). Therefore [he] takes Kǒng [Yǐngdá] and Zhèng [Xuán] schools’ zhùshū and balances on Zhūzǐ’s writings, striving to obtain the middle. With also extending to the Chūnqiū, the Lǜlǚ (pitch-pipes), and what may be mutually-clarifying with the canonical-ritual in heaven-time and human-affairs — all are taken in. Where there is doubt and not-yet-decided, [he] still leaves a gap; therefore [the title] is Dúlǐ zhìyí.
Examining: the canonical ritual books — although having undergone the Qín fires and being mostly fragmentary-not-complete — yet the Hàn-period various Confucians [were] not far from antiquity. Their training-and-explanations — generally have basis; not the same as conjecture-pursuit-by-meaning. Sòng-Confucian yìlǐ — although precise — yet broad-examination and detail-investigation in the end do not match the zhùshū-school’s specialised learning. [Lù] Lǒngqí — devoted-thinking on heart-nature, [an] adherer-to ChéngZhū — his attainment’s purity is sincere [in a way] rare in modern Confucian-circles; yet on discussing the Sānlǐ, [he] is in fact different from those of the ancients who have-pierced-into [the Sānlǐ] for life-time.
Yet Kǒng’s shū’s sincere-believing of the Zhèng annotation often inevitably contains fùhuì; and Chén Hào’s Jíshuō especially [has] meanness-and-narrowness. [Lù] Lǒngqí — following the text correcting [errors], examining-and-checking, balancing — his use-of-mind [is] in fact not what vulgar Confucians can reach.
[Examples follow:] As [in] discussing Kǒng’s shū’s Yuèlìng citing Tàishǐ Zhèng’s annotation “zhōng shù yuē suì, shuò shù yuē nián; both raised then differentiate nián-and-suì; singly raised then can be mutually-named”. Further [on] the xiángtán matter [he] sides with Zhèng [Xuán] and rejects Wáng [Sù]; on the miàozhì he honours Liú [Xīn] and rejects Zhèng [Xuán]; on the ritual having bìnzhào, the music having xiāngbù wēn zhī zhì yě text — [he] argues wēn simply is yùnjiè (containment); should not be like Kǒng’s shū’s saying — to use object to support-and-receive. On the bù bǔ dì bù shì xué, [he] takes Kǒng’s shū’s “not in the dì-sacrifice year [, the shì xué ceremony] also waits until after the seasonal-sacrifice”; rebuts the Jíshuō’s “non-five-year not seeing the school” exposition. On the Sīzūnyí biàn cháojiàn wéi cháoxiàn, biàn zàixiàn wéi kuìxiàn as condensation-of-text and reciprocal-text method — all [are] truly seeing [insights] sufficient to wing the canonical training.
As to the zī, zī, chún three characters — [Lù] saying chún should be made zī; “the ancients’ character was also mistakenly used; later [readers] cannot but be careful” — [Lù] does not know that ancient characters mostly inter-substitute; in the source not-able to be limited by recent precedent. Further [on] Yuán Huáng’s Qúnshū bèikǎo taking Jiǎ Gōngyàn as a slip for Jiǎ Kuí — [a matter] commonly known by men — what need to take pains to discriminate? Yet [Lù] specially established one item to make a refutation-correction. This probably is when reading-the-book a casually-noted note; [his] disciples editing-and-arranging and checking-and-printing erroneously made [it] enter the main text; not [first] being selected-and-discriminated. Indeed insufficient to be a fault for [Lù] Lǒngqí.
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
Lù Lǒngqí’s Dúlǐ zhìyí is the principal Sānlǐ miscellany of the early-Qīng Cheng-Zhu scholarly tradition. The Sìkù tíyào — typically critical of strictly Cheng-Zhu yìlǐ commentary — gives an unusually nuanced verdict here, recognising Lù Lǒngqí’s specific interpretive contributions while noting that his methodology is not at the level of kǎozhèng specialists. The work’s particular strengths are in textual contextualisation and balanced editorial judgement — specifically the willingness to side with Zhèng Xuán in some cases (the xiángtán) and with Wáng Sù in others (some aspects of the miàozhì), reflecting an editorial method less partisan than either the strict zhùshū tradition or strict SòngYuán yìlǐ.
The dating bracket 1665–1693 covers Lù Lǒngqí’s adult scholarly career through his death in 1693. Lù was jìnshì of Kāngxī 9 (1670); served in various provincial offices including the magistracy of Língshòu 靈壽 (1676–1681); was promoted to Sìchuān dàofu and ultimately to Tàichángsì shǎoqīng. The Dúlǐ zhìyí was apparently composed across his official career, with substantial reworking in retirement. The 1693 terminus ad quem corresponds to his death-year.
The work was edited and printed by Lù Lǒngqí’s disciples after his death — as noted by the Sìkù editors, who mention textual-editorial slips (the casually-noted Jiǎ Kuí item) introduced by the disciples’ editorial process. Lù was enshrined in the imperial Confucian temple in Yōngzhèng 2 (1724), and the work’s posthumous canonical status as imperial-Cheng-Zhu Confucian text is confirmed by its inclusion in the Sìkù.
Translations and research
- Qīng shǐ gǎo 清史稿 j. 265 (biography of Lù Lǒng-qí).
- Wing-tsit Chan 陳榮捷, “Lu Long-ch’i”, in Arthur W. Hummel (ed.), Eminent Chinese of the Ch’ing Period (Library of Congress, 1943), 547–548 — major English biographical entry.
- Pèng Lín 彭林, Sānlǐ yánjiū rùmén 三禮研究入門 (Fùdàn dàxué chūbǎnshè, 2012) — covers the early-Qīng Cheng-Zhu Sānlǐ tradition.
Other points of interest
Lù Lǒngqí’s enshrinement in the Confucian temple in 1724 — making him the only Qīng-period figure to receive this honour — places his Sānlǐ work in a unique imperial-canonical position. The Dúlǐ zhìyí, as the principal Cheng-Zhu Sānlǐ miscellany of the early Qīng court, is therefore one of the imperial-court’s models for what mid-Qīng Cheng-Zhu Sānlǐ scholarship was supposed to look like — even though the actual Sìkù verdict (preferring evidential-school works like Jiāng Yǒng’s KR1d0074) suggests that the editors recognised the limits of this model.
Links
- Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lu_Longqi
- Chinaknowledge: http://www.chinaknowledge.de/Literature/Classics/sanli.html