Běijiāo Pèiwèi Zūn Xīxiàng Yì 北郊配位尊西向議
A Discussion of the Westward-Facing Co-Sacrificial Placement at the Northern Suburban Altar by 毛奇齡 (撰)
About the work
A short treatise (1 juǎn) by Máo Qílíng 毛奇齡 (1623–1716) on the proper orientation of the pèiwèi (co-sacrificial seats of the imperial ancestors) at the Běijiāo (Northern Suburban) altar of the earth-sacrifice. Composed in Kāngxī 24 (1685) when Tàichángsì qīng Xú Yuángǒng 徐元珙 memorialized that the Běijiāo (now reoriented north-facing) should not have its three founding-emperor pèiwèi arranged east-then-west as on the Nánjiāo; the orientations should be reconsidered. Máo, then Hànlín jiǎntǎo in the Míngshǐ compilation, wrote this discussion in response, arguing from the Yílǐ Dàshè and Yàn lǐ protocols that the southward-facing east-priority and westward-facing north-priority arrangements both derive from the Yílǐ. The Sìkù tíyào—an unusually critical one for a Sìkù-included work—concedes the philological depth but corrects Máo’s reasoning on the proper Běijiāo orientation.
Tiyao
By Máo Qílíng of our dynasty. Qílíng’s Zhòngshì Yì has been catalogued. In Kāngxī 24, Tàichángsì qīng Xú Yuángǒng memorialized that, in the present sacrificial code, the Běijiāo had been changed to north-facing, but the three founding-ancestor pèiwèi still followed the east-priority west-secondary arrangement of the Nánjiāo; he asked that the orientations be revised. Qílíng, then Jiǎntǎo, accordingly wrote this work.
He criticizes the Hàn Yuánshǐ Yí’s misreading: the early-spring joint-sacrifice’s heaven-position is on the west, earth-position on the east—both derive from misinterpreting the Lǐjì Qūlǐ “the seat facing south or north has west as the high position.” But Qūlǐ speaks of ordinary-seating; in formal-ceremony seating, the Yílǐ Shèlǐ always seats the guest at the hùxī, with east as priority—different from Qūlǐ. The Xiāngshèlǐ says: “Seat the guest south-facing, east as priority”; Jiǎ Gōngyàn’s sub-commentary explains: “Said east-priority because the host is on the east, so the seat-end is on the east; one cannot use the Qūlǐ’s ‘south-or-north-facing seat with west as priority’ for the gloss.” Máo’s criticism of the Yuánshǐ Yí is well-grounded.
As to the Yuánshǐ Yí’s west-facing south-priority placement, this also follows the Qūlǐ’s “west-or-east-facing seat with south as priority.” Máo prefers the post-Hàn revision to north-priority. His argument here is exact. But the source of the “north-priority” rule is also the Yílǐ: the Dàshèyí says: “Dàfū continue with east as priority; if any are east-facing, then north as priority.” The Yànlǐ says: “Officers having presented stand on the east, west-facing, with north as priority.” This north-priority is the variant of south-priority. Máo knows that south-facing east-priority comes from the Yílǐ, but does not know that west-facing north-priority also comes from the Yílǐ—he knows one but not two.
Máo argues further that since the Běijiāo has been changed to north-facing, the pèiwèi should be governed by the orientation; since the Earth Way honors the right, the pèiwèi should have east as priority—east being the right of north-facing. But the Yílǐ Dàshèyí says: “Various dukes are at the zuòjiē (eastern stair) west, north-facing, with east as priority.” The Yànlǐ says: “Qīng dàfū all enter the gate at the right, north-facing, with east as priority.” So a north-facing Běijiāo with east-priority pèiwèi completely matches the Yílǐ’s “north-facing east-priority.” Máo’s “Earth Way honors the right” reasoning is therefore inadequate.
Even so, the work is precisely argued and broadly cited; among the ritual-discussion writers from the Sòng and Míng on, it stands out.
Abstract
A specialized polemical treatise on a specific Kāngxī-era ritual reform. Máo Qílíng’s intervention is dated firmly to 1685, the year of Xú Yuángǒng’s memorial. The dating bracket: notBefore=notAfter=1685. CBDB confirms Máo’s life-dates 1623–1716.
The Sìkù tíyào is unusually critical: it agrees with Máo on his criticism of the Hàn Yuánshǐ Yí but corrects his reasoning on the proper Běijiāo orientation, citing further Yílǐ passages that Máo overlooked. The criticism is conducted with respect (“among SòngMíng ritual-discussion writers, this stands out”), but it is real. Máo’s polemical writing is famous for its force and his mistakes are equally famous.
The work was, in any event, not adopted: the Qīng court retained the Nánjiāo-style east-then-west arrangement of pèiwèi at the Běijiāo, despite Máo’s argument.
Translations and research
Standard editions: Wényuāngé Sìkù. The work is included in the Xī-hé jí 西河集 (Máo’s collected works, in 280 juǎn; in Sìkù, KR4d). Western Qīng-ritual scholarship: Angela Zito, Of Body and Brush (1997); Joseph A. Adler, “The Heritage of Neo-Confucianism: Studies in Chu Hsi and the Yi-jing Tradition” (Anthem, 2014). For Máo Qílíng’s broader scholarship, see Lynn Struve, The Ming-Qing Conflict, 1619–1683: A Historiography and Source Guide (Association for Asian Studies, 1998).
Other points of interest
Máo Qílíng’s repeated involvement in early-Qīng ritual-policy debates (this Běijiāo paper, his Sìshū gǎi cuò, his Tángsòng yùn fù-related pieces) and the Sìkù editors’ habitual practice of including but criticizing his work make him one of the most-corrected scholars in the Sìkù corpus. The pattern is itself a small case-study in late-Qīng evidential scholarship’s relation to early-Qīng polemical scholarship.