聞分館君 Ask BunKanKun

郊社禘祫問

5 min read

Text ID
KR1d0082
Date
1685–1716
Dynasty
清

Jiāoshè dìxiá wèn 郊社禘祫問

Questions on the Suburban Sacrifice, the Altar of Soil, the Dì, and the Xiá

by 毛奇齡 (撰)

About the work

A short Kāngxī-period monograph in 1 juàn by Máo Qílíng 毛奇齡 (1623–1716) on four central problems of imperial state ritual: the jiāo (suburban sacrifice to Heaven and Earth), the shè (altar of the soil), the dì (great ancestral feast), and the xiá (collective ancestral sacrifice). The first part is structured as a response to questions from his disciple Lǐ Gōng 李塨 (1659–1733) on the southern-and-northern altar division (the nánběi jiāo fēnsì question) and on the proposition of “dì with no xiá”. The latter part is the Àitáng wèn (Questions at the Àitáng), a record of a similar discussion with fellow scholars at the Àitáng meeting place. The Sìkù tíyào judges Máo’s discussions as substantive on the dì-and-xiá questions but methodologically cautious on the jiāo question; the work is preserved as a useful contribution to the Sānlǐ discussion.

Tiyao

We respectfully submit that Jiāoshè dìxiá wèn in one juan was composed by Máo Qílíng of the present dynasty. Earlier [it is] [Máo’s] response to his disciple Lǐ Gōng’s questions on the south-and-north divided-sacrifice and on the [proposition of] “dì without xiá”; at the end is appended the Àitáng wèn — [Máo Qílíng’s] own annotation says: “the same-prefecture scholars assembled at the Àitáng — there were [these] questions; this then specially discusses dìxiá.”

[Máo] Qílíng’s nature delights in attacking-and-rebutting former men. The southern-and-northern jiāo divided-sacrifice — at the winter-and-summer solstice days — the canon-text [is] explicit; [those who] doubt there is no northern-suburb sacrifice — originally need no debate. As to apart from seasonal-sacrifices, the dì as the great-sacrifice — the so-called “three years one xiá, five years one dì” — words coming-out from the apocryphal-books — originally insufficient to rely-upon. The xiá — its meaning is opposed to tè (single); not opposed to dì. Within the book [he] argues [that] dàdì and jídì do not mutually-imply; further says: dàdì, jídì, the seasonal-sacrifice — necessarily must be héjì (combined-sacrifice) — therefore called xiá. All raise [points] former Confucians did not reach. On canonical meaning [these] are not without supplement; sufficient to provide the ritual-house-school’s selecting-and-choosing.

Respectfully revised and submitted, third month of the forty-third year of Qiánlóng [1778].

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

Abstract

Máo Qílíng’s Jiāoshè dìxiá wèn — together with his more substantial parallel work KR1d0092 Biàndìng jìlǐ tōngsú pǔ — represents one of the most influential early-Qīng yìlǐ-school interventions on imperial state-sacrifice ritual. The four questions discussed (jiāo, shè, dì, xiá) are the central problems of the imperial-canonical sacrifice system, and Máo’s positions — particularly the rejection of the apocryphal-text-based “three-year xiá / five-year dì” formula and the redefinition of xiá as opposed to tè (single) rather than to dì (great ancestral feast) — became central reference points in subsequent Qīng court-ritual discussions.

The work’s organisation as a Q&A with Lǐ Gōng — Máo’s most important disciple, founder of the YánLǐ school of practical Confucianism (with Yán Yuán 顏元) — situates it in the broader early-Qīng yìlǐ-and-statecraft current. The Àitáng wèn appendix records discussions at the Hángzhōu Àitáng meeting place, a gathering place for early-Qīng Zhèjiāng scholars.

The dating bracket 1685–1716 covers Máo Qílíng’s later life — the period of his active scholarship after his return from his Confucian-temple lectureship at the Hànlín — through to his death. Lǐ Gōng was Máo’s disciple from the late 1670s; the documented Q&A relationship implies the work belongs to the period of their collaboration. The work cannot be tied to a precise year.

Máo Qílíng’s general scholarly persona — characterised by the Sìkù tíyào as “delighting in attacking-and-rebutting former men” — is one of the most polemical of the early-Qīng Sānlǐ commentators. His positions on the jiāo question are characterised here as “originally need no debate” — a notable rhetorical dismissal — but his positions on the dìxiá question are credited as raising points former Confucians did not reach.

Translations and research

  • Qīng shǐ gǎo 清史稿 j. 481 (biography of Máo Qí-líng).
  • Wing-tsit Chan 陳榮捷, “Mao Ch’i-ling”, in Arthur W. Hummel (ed.), Eminent Chinese of the Ch’ing Period (Library of Congress, 1943) — major English biographical entry.
  • Benjamin A. Elman, From Philosophy to Philology (Harvard, 1984; rev. 2001) — situates Máo Qí-líng in the early-Qīng evidential-school tradition.
  • Pèng Lín 彭林, Sānlǐ yánjiū rùmén 三禮研究入門 (Fùdàn dàxué chūbǎnshè, 2012) — covers Máo Qí-líng’s Sānlǐ corpus.

Other points of interest

Máo Qílíng’s later Sānlǐ corpus — including this work, the KR1d0092 Biàndìng jìlǐ tōngsú pǔ, and a number of monograph studies — was one of the most substantial single early-Qīng yìlǐSānlǐ projects. His combination of polemical argumentation with substantive evidential engagement made him simultaneously the most controversial and most influential of the early-Qīng Sānlǐ commentators. Subsequent Qīng-evidential scholars (Jiāng Yǒng KR1d0074, Sūn Yírǎng) regularly engaged with his positions, often in critical mode.

Graph View

Backlinks