辨定祭禮通俗譜

Biàndìng jìlǐ tōngsú pǔ 辨定祭禮通俗譜

A Practical Handbook of Determined Sacrificial Ritual

by 毛奇齡 (撰)

About the work

A late-Kāngxī period popular handbook on ancestral sacrifice in 5 juàn by Máo Qílíng 毛奇齡 (1623–1716, the same author as KR1d0082 Jiāoshè dìxiá wèn). Originally projected as one half of a two-part Èr zhòng lǐpǔ 二重禮譜 (Double Ritual Handbook) covering both sānglǐ (mourning) and jìlǐ (sacrifice), but Máo’s mourning-ritual portion ended up published separately as Sānglǐ wúshuō biān 喪禮吾說編 — leaving this work as the surviving sacrifice-handbook half. The work takes ancient ritual but adjusts to contemporary institutional reality, hence the title “tōngsú” (popularising / making practical). The seven-rubric structure: jìsuǒ (sacrificial-place), suǒjì zhě (those sacrificed-to), zhǔjì zhī rén (one who presides at sacrifice), jì zhī shí (sacrifice-time), jìyí (sacrifice-protocol), jìqì (sacrifice-vessels), jìwù (sacrifice-offerings), with an appended wàishén (external gods) section. The Sìkù tíyào notes that several of Máo’s positions disagree with Zhū Xī’s Jiālǐ KR1d0089 but defends Máo’s positions as not unreasonable, particularly given the Jiālǐ’s contested authorship status.

Tiyao

We respectfully submit that Biàndìng jìlǐ tōngsú pǔ in five juan was composed by Máo Qílíng of the present dynasty. [Máo] Qílíng has Zhòngshì Yì, already catalogued. This compilation has another name Èr zhòng lǐpǔ — apparently wishing to complete the sāng and jì two rituals; subsequently with the sānglǐ separately having a Wúshuō biān; therefore [the compilation] only preserves the jìlǐ. His exposition takes ancient ritual and adjusts with present institutions; therefore takes “tōngsú” (practical-popular) as name. In total dividing into seven rubrics: one jìsuǒ; two suǒjì zhě; three zhǔjì zhī rén; four jì zhī shí; five jìyí; six jìqì; seven jìwù. The end appends wàishén (external gods).

Within: each section although at-times with Zhūzǐ’s Jiālǐ arguing-difficulties — does not exit [Máo] Qílíng’s daily xiāozhēng (clamouring-disputing) habit. Yet examining Zhūzǐ’s Niánpǔ: Jiālǐ completed in Qiándào 6 gēngyín [1170]; Zhūzǐ at the time was forty-one years old; his draft soon was stolen-away by men. Past thirty years — after Zhūzǐ died — only-then [it] again had a transmitted recension circulating in the world. Confucians sometimes [are] suspicious of it. Huáng Gàn — Zhūzǐ’s chief disciple — also said: “[it is the] not-yet-fixed text.” Then the Jiālǐ coming-out from Zhūzǐ’s hand-fixing-or-not — there is still no clear evidence. Even-if one really obtains Zhūzǐ’s already-lost draft and rough-creating-just-completed — also fearfully still not the fixed-text. With Wáng Màohóng’s piety-to-Zhū-zǐ — yet the Báitián zájì he composed reverses-and-discriminates the work’s depending-and-attaching [character]. Then [Máo] Qílíng’s discrimination further cannot fully use winning-out as eyes [criterion].

Within [the work]: as saying [that] from Hàn and Táng onwards, men-officials had no text [authorising the] erecting-of-shrines; the Sòng Shàoxīng and Jiātài years [the official shrines] for Qín Kuài and Hán Tuōzhòu [were] established as shrines, and the system to-the-end did-not-stand. Examining Sòng Gōng Dǐngchén’s Dōngyuán lù: [Wén] Yànbó’s family-shrine did-not-make seven-bays, [it] then used Táng Dù Qígōng family’s old form. Then how can [we] say from-Hàn-onwards has-no text [authorising the] erecting-of-shrines? His discussion of later-generations not-having-hereditary-rank, hereditary-office; the present-time zōngzǐ not [being] the ancient zōngzǐ — citing qiānmò (field-paths) different from jǐngtián (well-fields), jùnxiàn (commanderies-counties) different from fēngjiàn (fiefdoms) as evidence — his exposition is right. Yet the jǐngtián abolished [but] the zhènggōng (proper-tribute) meaning not abolished; the fēngjiàn abolished [but] the bìzhǐ xiāngwéi (arms-and-fingers mutually-supporting) meaning not abolished; the shìguān (hereditary-office) abolished [but] the zōngzǐ zhīzǐ meaning not abolished. The Hàn shū recorded contemporary edicts often called “cì tiānxià wéi fùhòu zhě” — at that time already not-hereditary-officing — and saying “wéi fùhòu” then [implied] there [were those] not-yet-being-fù-hòu, [which] is knowable. The present system: the father-mother surviving and [the] son’s first dying — [the] eldest grandson at the grandfather-mother’s mourning serves three-years-zhǎn-cuī — namely the zōngzǐ wéihòu meaning, brightly may [be] pushed-out. How can [one] in-one-stroke abolish [it]?

Reaching to “the sacrifice must with the son”: one item; saying [that] the lineage-hall combined-sacrifice [of the] previous generation, making [it that] the zōngzǐ presides-over [the] four-close-temples’ sacrifice — causing all sons to not-be-able-to-sacrifice their fathers — then “those sacrificed-to” relate to “another’s parents” not [their] own parents; “those sacrificed-to” father relates to “another’s father” not [their] own father — phrasing-and-language especially reverse. All [these] cannot avoid having flaws. Apparently his great intent [is] working-to-be-practical-with-human-feeling; therefore cannot avoid having forced-arguing.

Yet his kǎojù of ritual-meaning is also at-times very precise. Therefore [we] still preserve [it] as completing one school’s saying.

Respectfully revised and submitted, [date].

Abstract

Máo Qílíng’s Biàndìng jìlǐ tōngsú pǔ is a late-Kāngxī popular ancestral-sacrifice handbook representing the practical-Confucian wing of the early-Qīng yìlǐ tradition. Composed as the surviving half of a projected Èrzhòng lǐpǔ (Double Ritual Handbook), it stands alongside Máo’s KR1d0082 Jiāoshè dìxiá wèn on imperial state sacrifice as the two principal Máo Qílíng Sānlǐ monographs. The work’s specifically polemical engagement with Zhū Xī’s Jiālǐ — which the Sìkù tíyào defends as not unreasonable given the Jiālǐ’s own contested-authorship status (see KR1d0089 tíyào) — reflects the broader early-Qīng question of whether the Jiālǐ should be treated as canonical-Zhū-school jiālǐ or as a fabricated work of contested authority.

The Sìkù tíyào’s mixed verdict — credit for kǎojù on ritual-meaning, criticism for forced-arguing in some specific positions — is structurally similar to its verdict on Máo’s KR1d0082 parallel work. The dating bracket 1685–1716 covers Máo Qílíng’s later scholarly life through his death; the work cannot be tied to a precise year.

The Sìkù tíyào is interesting in its detailed engagement with two specific Máo positions: (i) the historical claim that there was no canonical text authorising erection of family-shrines from Hàn through Sòng (rejected by reference to Gōng Dǐngchén’s Dōngyuán lù on Wén Yànbó’s family-shrine following Dù Qígōng’s Táng-period precedent); (ii) the position that the contemporary zōngzǐ is fundamentally different from the ancient zōngzǐ and so the canonical zōngzǐ sacrificial role no longer applies (rejected on the grounds that the contemporary mourning-grade system still preserves the zōngzǐ role through the eldest-grandson three-year mourning). These are substantive Confucian-scholarship disputes, not formal-philological corrections, and reflect the Sìkù editors’ engagement with Máo Qílíng on intellectual rather than purely textual grounds.

Translations and research

• Qīng shǐ gǎo 清史稿 j. 481 (biography of Máo Qí-líng).
• Patricia Buckley Ebrey, Confucianism and Family Rituals in Imperial China (Princeton, 1991) — discusses Máo Qí-líng in the early-Qīng jiā-lǐ tradition.
• 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.
• 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

The Sìkù tíyào’s defence of Máo Qílíng against the charge of disrespect-to-Zhū-Xī — by appealing to the Jiālǐ’s contested authorship — exemplifies the eighteenth-century editorial strategy of detaching philological criticism from the political-canonical question of ZhūXué orthodoxy. The Sìkù editors recognise that scholarly disagreement with a putatively-Zhū-Xī work is not the same as disagreement with Zhū Xī himself, and use this distinction to make space for Máo Qílíng’s polemical Sānlǐ work in the imperial canon.

Links

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