聞分館君 Ask BunKanKun

參讀禮志疑

6 min read

Text ID
KR1d0083
Date
1730–1759
Dynasty
清

Cāndú lǐ zhìyí 參讀禮志疑

Companion-Reading Notes on Doubts in the Ritual Classics

by 汪紱 (撰)

About the work

A mid-Qiánlóng-period Sānlǐ commentary in 2 juàn by Wāng Fú 汪紱 (1692–1759, also named 汪烜, zì Cànrén 燦人), native of Wùyuán 婺源 — the same county as Jiāng Yǒng KR1d0074, also a major Wǎnpài evidentialist of the next generation. The work is structurally a parallel commentary to Lù Lǒngqí’s KR1d0081 Dúlǐ zhìyí: Wāng Fú lists Lù’s items section by section and appends his own comments below. The result is a layered double commentary that both extends and corrects Lù Lǒngqí. Methodologically Wāng Fú is a Wáng Sù 王肅 partisan against the dominant Zhèng Xuán tradition, which gives the work its distinctive intellectual character: most divergences from the zhùshū tradition follow Wáng Sù.

Tiyao

We respectfully submit that Cāndú lǐ zhìyí in two juan was composed by Wāng Fú of the present dynasty. [Wāng] Fú — alternatively named Xuān, zì Cànrén, a man of Wùyuán. This book takes Lù Lǒngqí’s Dúlǐ zhìyí, every item listed-and-arranged, with [his] own meaning appended-as-companion under each item.

In its [readings] of Sānlǐ major points — like saying the nánjiāo is precisely the yuánqiū; the dàshè is precisely the běijiāo; the dì is not the name of sacrificing-Heaven; the lùqǐn cannot imitate the Míngtáng system. Further [Wāng] strenuously rebuts the Dàxiǎng míngtáng “WénWáng paired with the Five-Heaven-Emperors, WǔWáng paired with the Five-Human-Emperors” exposition — all sides with Wáng Sù and demotes Zhèng Xuán. Therefore [his book] is at variance with the old annotation.

His clearly-and-explicitly errors: as saying east-and-west jiáshì (annexes) are not at the two sides of the hall but at the two sides of the east-and-west chamber. Examining the Yílǐ Gōngshí dàifu lǐ: the duke welcoming the guest enters, the dàifu stands at the east-jiá south, the shì stand at the gate east, the xiǎochén east-of-the-hall below, the zǎi east-jiá north, the nèiguān zhī shì at the zǎi east upper, [and] the jiè (intermediary) at the gate west — apparently all positioned at the upper-and-lower of the hall. If [it were] as [Wāng] Fú says, then the dàifu and zǎi would alone-against-the-multitude stand-out at the back of the hall and at the two sides of east-and-west chambers — concealed places. Further [in] the Pìn lǐ, shè sūn (setting the meal): also says “on the hall the zhuàn (vessels) eight, west-jiá six”. Apparently presenting zhuàn to the guest, his arrangement is from the hall to the courtyard to the gate — taking [it] that what is [arrayed] before-the-eye. As [Wāng] Fú says, then the zhuàn would also be set at the back of the hall! Is there such a principle?

[Wāng] Fú further says: shì have no cháofú (court-clothing); the xuánduān is the shì’s cháofú; the upper-shì with xuán lower-skirt; the middle-shì with yellow lower-skirt; the lower-shì with mixed lower-skirt. Examining the Shì guān lǐ: “the host wears xuánguān cháofú zīdài sùbì” — already saying sùbì, then the lower-skirt is white. With the qīngdàifu upward’s cháofú — at the start no different — never alone with the yellow lower-skirt, xuán lower-skirt, mixed lower-skirt of the xuánduān as cháofú. Further the Lǔ yǔ says: “the shì’s wife [wears] cháofú” — then the shì are firmly not without cháofú. [Wāng] Fú simply has not deeply examined.

As to what [he] says: dàifu shì have no west-chamber; therefore the Shì sāng lǐ the host kuòfā (binds-the-hair); the various hosts are miǎn (capped) at the chamber; while the women alone are zuǒ (mourning hairdo) at the shì (room) — because of having no west-chamber. His exposition bases-on Kǒng’s shū; can break Chén Xiángdào’s Lǐshū KR1d0084’s confusion. Further [he] says dàifu shì miào should also have zhǔ (tablets) — agreeing with the Tōngdiǎn recorded Xú Miǎo and Qīnghéwáng Yì’s discussion. Examples like these also have many places deeply obtaining canonical meaning — firmly may stand alongside [Lù] Lǒngqí’s book without abolishing.

Respectfully revised and submitted, sixth month of the forty-second year of Qiánlóng [1777].

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

Abstract

Wāng Fú’s Cāndú lǐ zhìyí is the principal mid-Qīng companion-commentary to Lù Lǒngqí’s KR1d0081 Dúlǐ zhìyí, providing a Wǎnpài evidential-school re-examination of Lù’s Cheng-Zhu Sòng-school Sānlǐ miscellany. The work’s editorial structure — laying Lù’s text section by section and appending corrective comments — creates an interesting layered scholarly conversation across the early-Qīng to mid-Qīng generational divide.

Wāng Fú’s distinctive partisanship for Wáng Sù against Zhèng Xuán is the work’s most prominent intellectual feature. The Wáng Sù school — long considered marginal in the HànTáng zhùshū tradition — was significantly rehabilitated in the mid-Qīng evidential period as scholars (especially Wǎnpài and Hànxué adherents) worked to recover non-Zhèng readings of the Sānlǐ. Wāng Fú’s specific positions in this work — nánjiāo equals yuánqiū, dàshè equals běijiāo, dì not a Heaven-sacrifice, the rejection of the Dàxiǎng míngtáng Five-Heaven-Emperor / Five-Human-Emperor parallel — are all standard Wáng Sù positions.

The Sìkù tíyào is mixed: clear textual errors are flagged (the jiáshì placement, the shì cháofú question), but several substantive points are acknowledged as deeply correct (the miǎnzuǒ position, the dàifu shì miào zhǔ question). The verdict — “firmly may stand alongside [Lù] Lǒngqí’s book without abolishing” — gives the work a status equivalent to Lù’s. The dating bracket 1730–1759 covers Wāng Fú’s adult scholarly career through his death.

Translations and research

  • Qīng shǐ gǎo 清史稿 j. 481 (biography of Wāng Fú).
  • Benjamin A. Elman, From Philosophy to Philology (Harvard, 1984; rev. 2001) — situates Wāng Fú in the Wǎn-pài tradition.
  • Pèng Lín 彭林, Sānlǐ yánjiū rùmén 三禮研究入門 (Fùdàn dàxué chūbǎnshè, 2012) — covers Wāng Fú’s Sānlǐ corpus.

Other points of interest

Wāng Fú is one of the few mid-Qīng evidentialists who openly espoused Wáng Sù’s tradition against Zhèng Xuán’s. His position should be read alongside the broader mid-Qīng debate on the WángZhèng (Wáng Sù vs. Zhèng Xuán) division of Sānlǐ opinion — a division that goes back to the WèiJìn period and was actively re-litigated in the mid-Qīng evidential period.

Graph View

Backlinks