| | 祫禘下: |
|
| |
|
| | 祫禘下: |
宋制，殷祭皆即吉乃行。武帝永初三年九月十日，奏傅亮議，權制即吉，聖代宜耳。文帝元嘉六年，祠部定十月三日殷祀，十三烝禮。孝武孝建元年十二月，有司奏：依舊令，今元年十月，是殷祠之月。大明七年二月，有司奏，四月應殷祠，若事中未得，用孟秋。 |
| | The regulations of the Song dynasty stipulated that Yin sacrifices could only be conducted after a period of mourning had ended. On the tenth day of the ninth month, Yongchu third year of Emperor Wu's reign, a proposal was submitted following Fu Liang's discussion, suggesting that mourning rites be abbreviated and replaced with auspicious ceremonies; this was considered appropriate for a sage dynasty. In the sixth year of Yuajia reign of Emperor Wen, the Department of Sacrifices established October 3rd as the date for Yin sacrifices and set thirteen Zeng rituals. In December of Xiaojian first year of Emperor Xiao Wu's reign, the officials submitted a report: "Following the established regulations, this October in the first year is the month for Yin sacrifices. In February of the seventh year of Daming, officials submitted a report stating that April should be used for Yin sacrifices; if this was not feasible due to ongoing affairs, then early autumn could be substituted.
|
| | 祫禘下: |
梁武帝初，用謝廣議，三年一禘，五年一祫，謂之殷祭。禘以夏，祫以冬。 |
| | At the beginning of Emperor Wu's reign in the Liang dynasty, Xie Guang's proposal was adopted: one di sacrifice every three years and one xia sacrifice every five years, collectively referred to as Yin sacrifices. Di sacrifices were held in summer, while xia sacrifices took place in winter.
|
| | 祫禘下: |
後魏孝文帝太和十三年詔：「鄭玄云：『天子祭圓丘曰禘，祭宗廟大祭亦曰禘。三年一祫，五年一禘。祫則毀廟群廟之主於太祖廟，合而祭之。禘則增及百官配食者，審諦而祭之。魯禮，三年喪畢而祫，明年而禘。圓丘、宗廟大祭俱稱禘，祭有兩禘明也。』王肅又云：『天子諸侯皆禘於宗廟，非祭天之祭。郊祀后稷不稱禘，宗廟稱禘。禘祫一名也，合祭故稱祫，禘而審諦之故稱禘，非兩祭之名。三年一祫，五年一禘，總而互舉，故稱五年再殷祭，不言一禘一祫，斷可知矣。』諸儒之說，大略如是。公卿可議其是非。」 |
| | In the thirteenth year of Tahe reign, Emperor Xiaowen of the Northern Wei issued an edict: "Zhang Huan stated: 'The Son of Heaven's sacrifice at the round altar is called di; a major sacrifice in the ancestral temple is also referred to as di. There should be one xia every three years and one di every five years." During the xia sacrifice, the ancestral tablets from the destroyed temples and other shrines are gathered in the Taizu temple for a combined offering. For the di sacrifice, additional offerings include officials of all ranks who were honored with posthumous meals; these are carefully examined and then offered in a formal ceremony. According to the Lu rites, xia sacrifices are conducted after completing three years of mourning, and di sacrifices take place the following year. "The grand sacrifice at the round altar and the major ancestral temple offering are both called di; this clearly indicates there are two distinct types of di sacrifices."' Wang Su also stated: "Both the Son of Heaven and feudal lords conduct di sacrifices in ancestral temples, which are not sacrifices to heaven. The suburban sacrifice for Houji is not referred to as a di sacrifice; only the ancestral temple offerings bear that name." Di and xia are essentially one and the same. The term xia is used because it refers to a combined sacrifice, while di is called such because of its thorough and detailed nature; they do not represent two separate types of sacrifices. "One xia every three years, and one di every five; these are summarized as two Yin sacrifices over a span of five years. It is clear that the term does not refer to one di and one xia separately." The interpretations by various Confucian scholars are generally as such. Ministers and high officials may deliberate on the merits of these arguments."
|
| | 祫禘下: |
尚書游明根言曰：「鄭氏之義，禘者大祭之名。大祭圓丘謂之禘者，審諦五精星辰也；大祭宗廟謂之禘者，審諦其昭穆、百官也。圓丘常合不言祫，宗廟時合故言祫。斯則宗廟祫禘並行，圓丘一禘而已。宜於宗廟俱行禘祫之禮。二禮異，故名殊。依禮，春廢祫，特礿，於禘則祫禘，於嘗於烝則祫嘗祫烝，不廢三時，三時皆行禘祫之禮。」 |
| | Yao Minggen, a Shangshu, stated: "According to Zhang's interpretation, di refers to the name of a major sacrifice. The grand sacrifice at the round altar called di involves carefully examining and offering sacrifices to the five pure stars and celestial bodies; A major ancestral temple sacrifice referred to as di means thoroughly examining the order of ancestors (Zhao Mu) and officials. Sacrifices at the round altar are always combined, so xia is not mentioned; sacrifices in ancestral temples are occasionally combined, hence xia is specified. Thus, in the case of ancestral temple rituals, both xia and di may be conducted concurrently; however, for the round altar, only one di sacrifice is performed. Therefore, both di and xia rites should be carried out in ancestral temples. These two rituals differ in nature, hence their distinct names. According to the rites, in spring, xia is omitted and only yue sacrifice is conducted; for di sacrifices, both xia and di are performed. For cheng and zeng sacrifices, xia cheng and xia zheng are also held. The three seasonal rituals should not be abandoned; during all three seasons, the rites of di and xia should be observed."
|
| | 祫禘下: |
中書監高閭又言：「禘祭圓丘與鄭義同者，以為有虞禘黃帝，黃帝非虞在廟之帝，不在廟，非圓丘而何？又大傳云禘其所自出之祖，又非在廟之文。論語稱『禘自既灌以往』，爾雅稱『禘，大祭也』。諸侯無禘。禮唯夏祭稱禘，又非宗廟之禘。魯行天子之儀，不敢專行圓丘之禘，改殷之禘，取其禘名於宗廟，因先有祫，遂生兩名。其宗廟禘祫之祭，據王氏之義，祫而禘，禘止於一時，一時者，祭不欲數。一歲三禘，愚以為過數。」 |
| | Gao Lü, the Zhongshu Jian, further stated: "The di sacrifice at the round altar aligns with Zhang's interpretation. It is believed that Youdi offered a di sacrifice to Huangdi; since Huangdi was not an emperor enshrined in the temple of Youdi, where else could this sacrifice take place if not at the round altar? Moreover, the Da Zhuan states that di sacrifices are offered to one's ancestral origin, which also does not refer to an emperor enshrined within a temple. The Analects state: "Di begins from the moment of pouring the first libation," and the Erya states: "Di is a grand sacrifice." Duke-level feudal lords do not conduct di sacrifices. According to the rites, only summer sacrifices are called di, and this is distinct from the di conducted in ancestral temples. The state of Lu followed the rituals of the Son of Heaven, but dared not independently conduct a di sacrifice at the round altar. Instead, it modified the Yin sacrifices and adopted the name "di" for ancestral temple offerings; since xia was already established beforehand, this led to two distinct names. Regarding the di and xia sacrifices in ancestral temples, according to Wang's interpretation, a xia sacrifice may also be called a di. However, the term "di" refers only to one specific occasion; this single occasion implies that sacrifices should not occur too frequently. Conducting three di sacrifices in a single year seems excessive, and I consider it unreasonable."
|
| | 祫禘下: |
詔曰：「明根、閭等，據二家之義，論禘祫詳矣。至於事取折衷，猶有未允。閭以禘祫為名，義同王氏，禘祭圓丘，事與鄭同。無所閒然。明根與鄭氏同，兩名兩祭，並存並用，理有未稱。俱據二義，一時禘祫，而闕二時之禮，事有難從。先王制禮，內緣人子之情，外協尊卑之序。故天子七廟，數盡則毀，藏主於太祖之廟，三年而祫祭之。代盡則毀，以示有終之義；三年而祫，以申追遠之情。禘祫既是一祭，分而兩之，事無所據。毀廟三年一祫，又有不盡四時，於禮為闕。七廟四時常祭，祫則三年一祭，而又不究四時，於情為簡。王以禘祫為一祭，王義為長；鄭以圓丘為禘，與宗廟大祭同名，義亦為當。今互取鄭、王二義。禘祫并為一名，從王；禘是祭圓丘大祭之名，上下同用，從鄭。若以數則黷，五年一禘，改祫從禘。五年一禘，則四時盡禘，以稱今情。禘則依禮文，先禘而後時祭。便即施行，著之於令，永為代法。」 |
| | The imperial decree stated: "Minggen, Lü, and others have thoroughly discussed the di and xia rituals based on interpretations from two schools of thought. However, in terms of practical application and compromise, there are still aspects that remain unsatisfactory. Lü equated the names di and xia with Wang's interpretation, considering their meanings to be the same; he also regarded the di sacrifice at the round altar as consistent with Zhang's view. There is no contradiction in this. Minggen's view aligns with Zhang Huan's, recognizing two names and two sacrifices that coexist and are used concurrently; however, this reasoning is not entirely satisfactory. Both interpretations rely on two schools of thought: holding one di and xia sacrifice at a single time, yet omitting the rituals for the other two seasons; this presents practical difficulties. The ancient kings established rites based on internal considerations of filial affection and external coordination with hierarchical order. Therefore, the Son of Heaven has seven ancestral temples; once this number is exceeded, additional shrines are destroyed and their tablets stored in the Taizu temple. After three years, a xia sacrifice is conducted. When succeeding generations end, temples are destroyed to signify the meaning of an ultimate conclusion; A xia sacrifice after three years expresses the sentiment of honoring ancestors from afar. Since di and xia refer to a single sacrifice, dividing them into two is without foundation in ritual practice. Destroying temples and holding a xia sacrifice every three years results in the omission of some seasonal rituals, which is considered an incomplete observance of the rites. The seven ancestral temples have regular sacrifices in all four seasons, while xia is held once every three years. However, if these combined offerings also do not follow the seasonal cycle, this would be considered overly simplified and disrespectful to sentiment. Wang regarded di and xia as a single sacrifice; Wang's interpretation is more reasonable. Zhang considered the round altar sacrifice to be a di, naming it similarly to major ancestral temple sacrifices; this interpretation is also appropriate. Now we adopt both Zhang and Wang's interpretations alternately. Di and xia will be considered as one name, following Wang; The term di refers to the grand sacrifice at the round altar, used consistently by both superiors and inferiors—this follows Zhang. If frequent sacrifices are considered irreverent, then holding a di sacrifice once every five years is appropriate; xia may be replaced by di in this case. Holding one di sacrifice every five years would mean that all four seasonal rituals are covered under the name of di, which aligns with current circumstances. For the di sacrifices, follow the ritual texts: conduct the di first and then hold seasonal offerings afterward. This should be implemented immediately, recorded in the regulations, and established as a permanent law for future generations."
|
| | 祫禘下: |
宣武帝景明中，祕書丞孫惠蔚上言：「魏明帝以景初三年正月崩，至廢帝正始二年，積二十五晦為大祥。有司以為禫在二十七月，到其年四月，依禮應祫。王肅以為禫在祥月，至其年二月，宜應祫祭。雖各異議，至於喪畢之祫，明年之禘，其義一焉。請取鄭捨王，禫終此晦，來月中旬，禮應大祫。六室神祏，升食太祖。明年春享，咸禘群廟。自茲以後，五年為常。又古之祭法，時祫並行，天子先祫後時，諸侯先時後祫。此於古為當，在今則煩。且禮有升降，事有文質，適時之制，聖人弗違。當祫之月，宜減時祭。」從之。 |
| | During the Jingming period of Emperor Xuanwu's reign, Sun Huiwei, a Mishi Cheng, submitted a proposal: "Emperor Ming of Wei died in January of Jingu third year. By Zhengshi second year under the Feidi emperor, twenty-five lunar months had passed, marking the Da Xiang mourning period. The officials believed that the dan mourning period ended in the twenty-seventh month; by April of that year, according to ritual regulations, a xia sacrifice should be held. Wang Su believed the dan period ended in the Xiang month; by February of that year, a xia sacrifice was appropriate. Although their opinions differ, regarding the xia sacrifice after mourning is complete and the di sacrifice of the following year, their meanings are essentially the same. It is requested to adopt Zheng's view over Wang's; with dan mourning ending on this last day of the month, a major xia sacrifice should be conducted in the middle of next month according to ritual. The spirits of the six ancestral chambers are elevated and offered sacrifices at the Taizu's altar. Next spring, during the sacrificial offering season, a di sacrifice will be conducted for all ancestral temples. From now on, this shall become standard practice every five years. In addition, according to ancient sacrificial practices, xia and seasonal sacrifices were conducted concurrently. The Son of Heaven performed the xia first, followed by the seasonal sacrifice; feudal lords, however, held the seasonal offering first, then the xia. This was appropriate in ancient times but would be excessive today. Moreover, ritual practices have evolved over time; matters of form and substance must adapt to the era—sages do not deviate from this principle. Therefore, during the month designated for xia sacrifices, seasonal offerings should be reduced." The proposal was accepted.
|
| | 祫禘下: |
延昌四年正月，宣武帝崩，孝明即位。三月，時議來秋七月應祫祭於太祖。太常卿崔亮上言曰：「今宣武皇帝主雖入廟，然烝嘗時祭，猶別寢室，至於殷祫，宜存古典。按禮，三年喪畢，祫於太祖，明年春禘於群廟。又按杜元凱云：『卒哭而除，三年喪畢而禘。』魏武皇后以太和四年六月崩，其月既葬，除服即吉，四時行事，而猶未禘。王肅以為今除即吉，故特時祭，至於禘祫，宜存古禮。高堂隆如肅議，於是停不殷祭。又仰尋太和二十三年四月，孝文帝崩，其年十月祭廟，景明二年七月祫於太祖，三年春禘於群廟，亦三年乃祫。準古禮及晉魏之議，并景明故事，愚謂來秋七月，祫祭應停，宜待年終而後祫禘。」從之。 |
| | In the first month of Yanchang fourth year, Emperor Xuanwu died; Xiaoming ascended to the throne. In March, discussions arose that in July of the following autumn, a xia sacrifice should take place at Taizu's temple. Tai Chang Qing Cui Liang submitted a proposal: "Although the spirit tablet of Emperor Xuanwu has now been placed in the temple, for the zeng and chang seasonal sacrifices, it is still kept in a separate chamber. Regarding the xia sacrifice, we should preserve classical tradition. According to ritual regulations, after three years of mourning is completed, a xia sacrifice must be held at Taizu's altar; the following spring, di sacrifices should take place in all ancestral temples. Moreover, according to Du Yu Kai: "After the final mourning rites are concluded, one removes their mourning attire; after three years of mourning ends, a di sacrifice is held." Empress of Wei Wu passed away in the sixth month of Taihe fourth year. After her burial that same month, mourning attire was removed and normal rituals resumed for the four seasons; however, a di sacrifice had not yet been held. Wang Su believed that since mourning was now lifted and normal rites resumed, only seasonal sacrifices should be conducted; as for di and xia, the ancient rituals should still be preserved. Gao Tang Long agreed with Wang Su's opinion, so the di sacrifice was postponed. Looking back, in the fourth month of Taihe twenty-third year, Emperor Xiaowen passed away. In October of that same year, temple sacrifices were held; in July of Jingming second year, a xia sacrifice took place at Taizu's altar, and in spring of the third year, di sacrifices occurred for all ancestral temples—this also followed the three-year cycle before holding the xia. Following ancient rituals, discussions from Jin and Wei dynasties, as well as precedents from the Jingming era, I believe that in July of next autumn, the xia sacrifice should not be held; it is more appropriate to wait until year's end before conducting both xia and di sacrifices." The proposal was accepted.
|
| | 祫禘下: |
大唐前上元三年，有司祫享於太祖廟。時議者以禮緯「三年一祫，五年一禘」，公羊傳云「五年而再殷祭」，兩義互文，莫能決斷。太學博士史玄璨議曰：「按禮記正義引鄭玄禘祫志云：『春秋，僖公三十三年十二月薨。文公二年八月丁卯，大享於太廟。公羊傳云：大享者何？祫也。』是三年喪畢，新君二年當祫，明年春禘於群廟。僖公、宣公八年皆有禘，則後禘去前禘五年。以此定之，則新君二年祫，三年禘。自爾之後，五年而再殷祭，則六年當祫，八年當禘。又昭公十年，齊歸薨，至十三年喪畢當祫，為平丘之會，冬，公如晉。至十四年祫，十五年禘，傳云『有事於武宮』是也。至十八年祫，二十年禘。二十三年祫，二十五年禘。昭公二十五年『有事於襄宮』是也。如上所云，則禘後隔三年祫，以後隔二年禘。此則有合禮經，不違傳義。」自此禘祫之祭，依璨議。 |
| | In the third year of Shangyuan during the Tang dynasty, officials conducted a xia sacrifice at Taizu's temple. At the time, scholars debated whether according to Li Wei's "a xia every three years and a di every five years" or Gongyang Zhuan's statement of "two major sacrifices in five years," these two interpretations were interwoven, and no consensus could be reached. Shi Xuan can, a Taixue bo shi, proposed: "According to the Zheng Xuan's record on di and xia cited in the Zhengyi of Li Ji: 'In Spring and Autumn Annals, Duke Xi passed away in December of his thirty-third year. Duke Wen's second year, on the Dingmao day of August, a grand sacrifice was held at the Grand Temple." The Gongyang Zhuan asks: What is meant by "a grand sacrifice"? "It refers to xia." This indicates that after three years of mourning, in the second year of a new ruler's reign, a xia sacrifice is held; the following spring, a di sacrifice takes place for all ancestral temples. Duke Xi and Duke Xuan both had di sacrifices in their eighth years; thus, the interval between one di sacrifice and the next was five years. Based on this determination, a new ruler should hold a xia in their second year and a di in their third year. From then onward, holding two major sacrifices every five years means that the sixth year should be for xia and the eighth year for di. In the tenth year of Duke Zhao's reign, Lady Qi Gui passed away; by the thirteenth year, mourning ended and a xia sacrifice was due. During this time, there was the Pingqiu assembly. In winter, the duke went to Jin. By the fourteenth year, a xia was held; in the fifteenth year, a di took place—this is what the Zhuan refers to as "a sacrifice at Wu Gong." By the eighteenth year, another xia was held; by the twentieth year, a di occurred. lop In the twenty-third year, a xia took place; in the twenty-fifth year, a di was conducted. This is what is referred to as "a sacrifice at Xiang Gong" in the twenty-fifth year of Duke Zhao's reign. As stated above, after a di sacrifice, three years pass before a xia is held; thereafter, two years elapse between each di. This interpretation aligns with the ritual classics and does not contradict the Zhuan's meaning." From then on, di and xia sacrifices followed Shi Xuan can's proposal.
|
| | 祫禘下: |
開元六年秋，睿宗皇帝喪畢，祫享於太廟。自後相承三年一祫，五年一禘，各自計年，不相通數。至二十七年，凡經五禘七祫。其年夏禘訖，冬又當祫。太常議曰： |
| | In the autumn of Kaiyuan sixth year, after Emperor Ruizong's mourning period ended, a xia sacrifice was conducted at the Grand Temple. Afterward, it became customary to hold a xia every three years and di every five years; each was calculated independently without overlapping counts. By the twenty-seventh year, there had been a total of five di sacrifices and seven xia sacrifices. That summer, after completing the di sacrifice, another xia was to be held in winter. The Tai Chang Institute proposed:
|
| | 祫禘下: |
禘祫二禮，俱為殷祭，祫謂合食祖廟，禘謂諦序尊卑。申先君逮下之慈，成群嗣奉親之孝，事異常享，有時行之。而祭不欲數，數則黷；亦不欲疏，疏則怠。故王者法諸天道，制祀典焉。烝嘗象時，禘祫如閏。五歲再閏，天道大成，宗廟法之，再為殷祭者也。謹按禮記王制、鄭玄注周官宗伯，並云「國君嗣位，三年喪畢，祫於太祖。明年禘於群廟。自爾以後，五年再殷，一祫一禘」。漢魏故事，貞觀以後，並用此禮，以為三年一閏，天道小備，五年再閏，天道大備故也。此則五年再殷，通計其數，一祫一禘，迭相乘矣。今太廟禘祫，各自數年，兩岐俱下，不相通計。或比年頻合，或同歲再序，或一禘之後，併為再祫，或五年之內，驟有三殷。法天象閏之期，既違其度；五歲再殷之制，數又不同。求之禮文，頗為乖失。夫以法天之度，既有指歸，稽古之禮，若茲昭著。禘祫二祭，通計明矣。今請以開元二十七年己卯四月禘，至辛巳年十月祫，至甲申年四月又禘，至丙戌年十月又祫，至己丑年四月又禘，至辛卯年十月又祫。自此五年再殷，周而復始。 |
| | Both di and xia are major sacrificial rites; xia refers to the gathering of ancestral spirits in the main temple, while di emphasizes the clear ordering of hierarchy among ancestors. They express the late ruler's kindness to his descendants and fulfill the filial devotion of future generations toward their ancestors. These rites differ from regular sacrifices and are conducted at specific times. However, frequent sacrifices are undesirable; too many would be disrespectful; Yet they should not be infrequent either, as that would lead to neglect. Therefore, the Son of Heaven follows celestial patterns and establishes sacrificial regulations accordingly. The zeng and chang sacrifices reflect seasonal cycles; di and xia function like intercalary months, adjusting the schedule as needed. With two intercalary months every five years, the celestial order is complete; ancestral temples follow this pattern by holding two major sacrifices. Carefully referring to the Li Ji Wangzhi and Zheng Xuan's annotations on Zhouguan Zongbo, both state: "When a ruler ascends the throne, after three years of mourning are completed, a xia should be held at Taizu. A di sacrifice should then take place for all ancestral temples in the following year." From that point onward, every five years there will be two major sacrifices: one xia and one di." Following the precedents of Han and Wei dynasties as well as those after Zhenguan, this ritual was consistently observed. This is because a single intercalary month every three years partially completes the celestial cycle, while two such months in five years fully completes it. Thus, over a span of five years with two major sacrifices, the total count includes one xia and one di, alternating in sequence. Currently, however, the di and xia at the Grand Temple are calculated separately; both cycles proceed independently without being combined into a single count. This has led to situations where sacrifices are held in consecutive years, or twice within the same year; after one di sacrifice, two xia may follow consecutively; or three major sacrifices might occur within five years. This violates the established pattern of following celestial cycles and intercalary months; the system of two major sacrifices every five years is also inconsistent in its application. Examining this according to ritual texts, it appears somewhat erroneous. Since the celestial pattern has a clear reference and ancient rituals are so clearly established, the two sacrifices of di and xia must be calculated together—this is now evident. Now we propose that in the fourth month of Kaiyuan twenty-seventh year (Gui Mao), a di sacrifice be held; by October of Xin Si year, hold xia; then again di in April of Jia Shen year and xia in October of Bing Xu year. Another di should follow in April of Ji Chou year and another xia in October of Xin Mao year. From then on, two major sacrifices will be held every five years, cycling endlessly.
|
| | 祫禘下: |
又禘祫之說，非唯一家，五歲再殷之文，既相師矣，法天象閏之理，大抵亦同。而禘後置祫，或近或遠，盈縮之度，有二法焉：鄭玄、高堂隆則先三而後二；徐邈之議，則先二而後三。謹按鄭氏所序先三之法，約三祫五禘之文，以為甲年既禘，丁年當祫，己年又禘，壬年又祫，甲年又禘，丁年又祫，周而復始，以此相承。祫後去禘，十有八月而近，禘後去祫，四十二月而遙，分析不均，粗於算矣。假如攻乎異端，置祫於秋，則三十九月為前，二十一月為後，雖小有愈，其閒尚偏。竊據本文，皆云象閏，二閏相去，則平分矣，兩殷之序，何不等耶？且又三年之言，本舉全數，二周有半，實枕三年，於此置祫，不違文矣，何必拘滯隔三正乎？蓋千慮一失，通儒之蔽。徐氏之議，有異於是，研覈周審，最為憑準。以二禘相去，為月六十，中分三十，置一祫焉。若甲年夏禘，丙年冬祫，己年夏禘，辛年冬祫，有象閏法，毫釐不偏。三年一祫之禮，既無乖越；五歲再殷之制，疏數又均。校之諸儒，義實長矣。今請依據以定二殷，先推祭月，周而復始。 |
| | Moreover, the interpretations of di and xia are not limited to a single school; the principle of two major sacrifices in five years has already been established, and the logic of following celestial patterns with intercalary months is largely consistent. However, the interval between a di and subsequent xia varies—some are close together while others are spaced further apart. There are two methods for determining this: Zheng Xuan and Gao Tang Long advocate starting with three years followed by two; Xu Miao's proposal, however, suggests beginning with two years before moving to three. Carefully examining Zheng Xuan's method of starting with three, which follows the pattern of "three xia and five di," it is proposed that if a di occurs in year Jia (e.g., 2014), then xia should follow in Ding year (e.g., 2023); another di would be held in Ji year (e.g., 1986) followed by xia again in Ren year (e.g., 75). This cycle continues, repeating endlessly. The interval from xia to di is as short as eighteen months, while the period between di and the next xia stretches up to forty-two months. This uneven distribution is rather crude in calculation. If one were to adjust by placing the xia in autumn, for example, then thirty-nine months would precede it and twenty-one follow. Although this slightly improves balance, there is still an imbalance between the intervals. According to the original text, both are modeled after intercalary months. If two such months are evenly spaced, why should these major sacrifices not also be equally distributed? Moreover, the reference to "three years" originally refers to a complete cycle. Two and a half cycles actually amount to three full years; holding xia within this period does not contradict the text—why then insist on rigidly separating them by three calendar years? This is a rare oversight among well-informed scholars. Xu Miao's argument differs from this, but upon thorough examination and careful analysis, it proves to be the most reliable standard. Between two di sacrifices, there are sixty months; dividing this evenly into thirty months allows for one xia to be placed in between. For example, if a di is held in summer of Jia year and xia follows in winter of Bing year; then another di occurs in summer of Ji year with xia following in winter of Xin year—this mirrors the intercalary method precisely without deviation. The principle of a xia every three years is thus not violated; the system of two major sacrifices within five years also achieves balanced intervals. Compared to the views of other scholars, this interpretation is clearly superior in meaning and logic. Now we propose establishing these two major sacrifices based on this principle; first determine the months for each sacrifice, then follow a cycle that repeats endlessly.
|
| | 祫禘下: |
時皆以其議為允。 |
| | At the time, all found his proposal acceptable.
|
| | 祫禘下: |
十七年四月十日，禘享太廟九室，命有司攝行禮。 |
| | On the tenth day of April in the seventeenth year, a di sacrifice was held for the nine ancestral chambers at the Grand Temple; officials were ordered to oversee and perform the rites.
|
| | 祫禘下: |
天寶八載閏六月五日，赦文：「禘祫之禮，以存序位，質文之變，蓋取隨時。國家系本仙宗，業承聖祖。重熙累盛，既錫無疆之休；合享登神，思弘不易之典。自今以後，每禘祫並於太清宮聖祖前設位序正，上以明陟配之禮，欽若玄宗，下以盡虔恭之誠，無違至道。比來每緣禘祫，則時享暫停，事雖適於從宜，禮或虧於必備。以後每緣禘祫，其常享無廢，享以素饌，三焚香以代三獻。」 |
| | On the fifth day of June, the intercalary month in the eighth year of Tianbao, an edict of amnesty stated: "The rites of di and xia sacrifices are conducted to preserve ancestral order; changes between simplicity and ceremony are meant to adapt with the times. Our state traces its lineage back to the immortal ancestors, inheriting a legacy from the sage founder. Through successive generations of prosperity and flourishing, we have already been bestowed boundless blessings; 隆重祭祀以尊崇神靈，期望弘揚永恆不變的禮儀傳統。 From now on, during each di and xia sacrifice, ancestral positions shall be arranged in proper order before the shrine of Emperor Shenzu at Taqing Palace. This is to clearly demonstrate the rites of ascending and matching with ancestors above, reverently following the profound principles of the Xuanzong dynasty; below, it expresses utmost sincerity and reverence, without violating the highest Daoist teachings. In recent years, whenever di or xia sacrifices were held, regular ancestral offerings were temporarily suspended. Although this practice may have been convenient for the occasion, it might have resulted in an incomplete observance of ritual propriety. From now on, whenever di or xia sacrifices are held, regular ancestral offerings shall not be discontinued. In such cases, simple food offerings will suffice for the ceremony, and three incense burnings will substitute for the traditional three wine offerings."
|
| | 祫禘下: |
建中二年九月，太常博士陳京上疏言：「今年十月，祫享太廟，并合享遷廟獻祖、懿祖二神主。春秋之義，毀廟之主陳於太祖，未毀廟之主皆升合食於太祖。則太祖之位，在西而東嚮，其下子孫，昭穆相對，南北為別，無毀廟遷主不享之文。徵是禮也，自於周室，而國朝祀典，當與周異。周以后稷配天，為始封之祖，而下乃立六廟。廟毀主遷，皆在太祖之後。禘祫之時，無先於太祖者，故太祖東嚮之位，全其尊而不疑。然今年十月祫饗太廟，伏請據魏晉舊制為比，則構築別廟。東晉以征西等四府君為別廟，至禘祫之時，則於太廟正太祖之位以申其尊，別廟登高皇、太皇、征西等四府君以序其親。伏以國家若用此義，則宜別為獻祖、懿祖立廟，禘祫祭之以重其親，則太祖於太廟遂居東向以全尊。伏以德明、興聖二皇帝，曩既立廟，至禘祫之時，常用享禮，今別廟之制，便就興聖廟藏祔為宜。」敕下尚書省集百僚議。 |
| | In September of the second year of Jianzhong, Tai Chang Bo Shi Chen Jing submitted a memorial stating: "This October, an xia sacrifice will be held at the Grand Temple, and the deified spirits of Emperor Xianzu and Emperor Yizu from the relocated ancestral temple will also be honored together. According to the principles of Spring and Autumn Annals, the deified spirits from destroyed ancestral temples are placed before the Taizu (the founding ancestor), while those from undestroyed temples all ascend together with their offerings at the shrine of Taizu. Thus, the position of Taizu is located to the west facing east; beneath him, descendants are arranged in generations (Zhao Mu), opposite each other with a north-south distinction. There is no record indicating that spirits from destroyed temples or relocated ancestral tablets should be excluded from the offerings. Investigating this ritual, it originates from the Zhou dynasty; however, our current dynasty's sacrificial rites should differ from those of the Zhou. The Zhou dynasty honored Houji as the ancestor who was paired with Heaven, and established six ancestral temples for subsequent generations. When ancestral temples were destroyed and their tablets relocated, they were all placed after the Taizu's shrine. During di or xia sacrifices, no ancestor is honored before Taizu; therefore, the eastern-facing position of Taizu fully preserves his supreme status without any doubt. However, for the xia sacrifice at the Grand Temple this October, I respectfully request that we follow the old systems of the Wei and Jin dynasties as a precedent; thus, separate ancestral temples should be constructed. During the Eastern Jin dynasty, separate temples were built for four ancestral lords such as Zhengxi; during di or xia sacrifices, the main position of Taizu was maintained at the Grand Temple to affirm his supreme status, while in the separate temples, offerings were made to Gao Huang, Tai Huang, and the four ancestral lords including Zhengxi to honor their closeness according to lineage. I respectfully suggest that if our state adopts this principle, we should establish separate temples for Emperor Xianzu and Emperor Yuzu, holding di or xia sacrifices there to emphasize their closeness. In doing so, Taizu will remain in the eastern-facing position at the Grand Temple, preserving his supreme status intact. I respectfully suggest that since Emperor Deming and Emperor Xingsheng already have their own temples, during di or xia sacrifices they are regularly honored with ancestral rites. Therefore, the system of separate temples should now be implemented by housing the relocated tablets in the existing Xingsheng Temple." An imperial decree was issued to the Shangshu Province, ordering it to gather all officials for discussion.
|
| | 祫禘下: |
禮儀使太子少師顏真卿議曰：「伏以太祖景皇帝以受命始封之功，處百代不遷之廟，配天崇享，是極尊嚴。且至禘祫之時，暫居昭穆之位，屈己申孝，敬奉祖宗，緣齒族之禮，廣尊先之道，此實太祖明神烝烝之本意，亦所以化被天下，率循孝悌。請依晉蔡謨等議，奉獻祖神主居東面之位，自懿祖、太祖洎諸祖宗，遵左昭右穆之列。」 |
| | Li Yi Shi Tai Zi Shao Shi Yan Zhenqing proposed: "I respectfully submit that Taizu Jing Huangdi, due to his meritorious role as the founder who received Heaven's mandate and established the dynasty, occupies a temple position that remains unchanged for all generations. He is honored by being paired with Heaven in sacrifices, which represents the highest respect and dignity. Moreover, during di or xia ceremonies, he temporarily occupies the position of Zhao Mu (generational order), humbling himself to express filial piety and respectfully serving ancestors. This follows the rites based on familial lineage, promoting reverence for predecessors; this is indeed in accordance with Taizu's original intention as a wise and venerated deity, and it also serves to civilize the realm by setting an example of filial devotion and fraternal respect. I respectfully request that we follow the proposal of Jin dynasty's Cai Mo et al., and place Emperor Xianzu's spirit tablet in the eastern-facing position. From Emperor Yizu, Taizu, to all other ancestors, they should be arranged according to the left Zhao (paternal) and right Mu (maternal) order."
|
| | 祫禘下: |
貞元七年，太常卿裴郁奏曰：「禘祫之禮，殷周以遷廟皆出太祖之後，故得合食有序，尊卑不差。及漢高受命，無始封祖，以高皇帝為太祖。太上皇，高帝之父，立廟享祀，不在昭穆合食之列，為尊於太祖故也。魏武創業，文帝受命，亦即以武帝為太祖。其高皇、太皇、處士君等，並為屬尊，不在昭穆合食之列。晉宣創業，武帝受命，亦即以宣帝為太祖。其征西、潁川等四府君，亦為屬尊，不在昭穆之列。國家誕受天命，累聖重光，景皇帝始封唐公，實為太祖。中閒代數既近，在三昭三穆之內，故皇家太廟，唯有六室。其弘農府君、宣光二祖，尊於太祖，親盡則遷，不在昭穆之數。著在禮志，可舉而行。開元中，加置九廟，獻、懿二祖皆在昭穆，是以太祖景皇帝未得居東向之尊。今二祖已祧，九室惟序，則太祖之位又安可不正。伏以太祖上配天地，百代不遷，而居昭穆，獻、懿二祖，親盡廟遷，而居東向，徵諸故實，深所未安。請下百僚僉議。」 |
| | In the seventh year of Zhenyuan, Tai Chang Qing Pei Yu submitted a memorial: "The rites for di and xia sacrifices originated in the Yin and Zhou dynasties. During these ceremonies, ancestral tablets from relocated temples were all descendants of Taizu; thus, they could be honored together in an orderly manner with clear distinctions between respect and hierarchy maintained without error. When Emperor Gaozu of Han received the mandate, there was no ancestor who had first established a fief; thus, he himself became Taizu. Taishang Huang (the Emperor Emeritus), the father of Emperor Gaozu, had a temple built and was honored with sacrifices; however, he did not participate in the Zhao Mu ancestral offerings. This is because his status was higher than that of Taizu. Cao Wei's founder, Emperor Wu, established the dynasty; later, Emperor Wen received the mandate and also regarded Emperor Wu as Taizu. Emperor Gao Huang (High Emperor), Tai Huang, Chushi Jun and others were all considered of higher status; therefore, they did not participate in the ancestral offerings arranged by Zhao Mu order. The Jin dynasty was founded by Emperor Xuan; later, Emperor Wu received the mandate and also designated Emperor Xuan as Taizu. The four ancestral lords, including Zhengxi and Yingchuan, were also considered of higher status and did not belong to the Zhao Mu order. Our state was divinely granted Heaven's mandate, with successive sage rulers bringing renewed glory; Emperor Jing Huangdi was the first to be enfeoffed as Duke of Tang and is indeed our Taizu. The number of generations between them was relatively small, all falling within the three Zhao (paternal) and three Mu (maternal) categories; therefore, our imperial Grand Temple contains only six chambers. Emperor Hongnong Fu Jun and the two ancestors, Xuan Guang, are of higher status than Taizu. Once their ancestral line is complete, they will be relocated to separate temples and do not belong among the Zhao Mu order. This is recorded in ritual records and can therefore be implemented accordingly. During the Kaiyuan era, nine ancestral temples were added; Emperor Xianzu and Yizu were both included in the Zhao Mu order, so Taizu Jing Huangdi did not attain the eastern-facing position of supreme honor. Now that these two ancestors have been relocated, only nine ancestral chambers remain in order; therefore, how can the position of Taizu possibly not be properly restored? I respectfully submit that Taizu, who is honored above by being paired with Heaven and Earth, should remain in a temple position unchanged for all generations; however, placing him among the Zhao Mu order while Emperor Xianzu and Yuzu—whose ancestral lines have ended and whose temples have been relocated—are given the eastern-facing positions contradicts historical practice and causes great unease. I respectfully request that this matter be submitted to all officials for collective discussion."
|
| | 祫禘下: |
八年正月，太子左庶子李嶸等七人議： |
| | In the first month of the eighth year, Tai Zi Zuo Shu Zi Li Reng and six others proposed:
|
| | 祫禘下: |
按王制曰：「天子七廟，三昭三穆，與太祖而七。」周制也。七者，太祖、文王及武王之祧，與親廟四也。太祖，后稷也。殷則六廟也，契及湯與二昭二穆也。夏則五廟，無太祖，禹與二昭二穆而已。晉朝博士孫欽議云：「王者受命太祖及諸侯始封之君，其以前神主，據以上數，過五代即毀其廟，禘祫不復及也。禘祫所及者，謂受命太祖之後，迭毀主升藏於二祧者。雖百代，禘祫及之。」伏以獻、懿二祖，則太祖以前親盡之主也。據三代以降之制，則禘祫不及矣。代祖神主，則太祖以下毀廟之主也，則公羊傳所謂「已毀廟之主，陳於太祖」者是也。謹按：漢元帝下詔，議罷郡國廟及親盡之祖，丞相韋玄成議太上、孝惠廟，皆親盡宜毀，太上廟主宜瘞北園，孝惠神主遷於太祖廟。奏可。太上，則太祖以前之主，瘞北園，禘祫不及故也，則今獻、懿二祖之比也。孝惠遷於太祖廟，明太祖以下子孫，則禘祫所及，則今代祖元皇帝神主之比也。自魏晉及宋齊陳隋相承，始受命之君皆立六廟，虛太祖之位。自太祖之後，至七代君，則太祖當東向位，乃成七廟。太祖以前之主，魏明帝則遷處士主置於園邑，歲時使令丞奉薦，代數猶近故也。至東晉明帝崩，以征西等三祖遷入西除，名之曰祧，以準遠廟。至康帝崩，穆帝立，於是京兆遷入西除，同謂之祧，如前之禮，並禘祫不及。 |
| | According to Wangzhi: "The Son of Heaven has seven ancestral temples, three Zhao (paternal), three Mu (maternal), and together with Taizu, they make up the seven." This is the system of the Zhou dynasty. The seven include Taizu, the relocated temples for King Wen and King Wu, as well as four ancestral temples of direct descendants. Taizu refers to Houji. The Yin dynasty had six ancestral temples, including Qi and Tang as well as two Zhao (paternal) ancestors and two Mu (maternal) ancestors. The Xia dynasty had five ancestral temples, without a Taizu; it included Yu as well as only two Zhao and two Mu ancestors. Jin dynasty Bo Shi Sun Qin proposed: "When a sovereign receives the mandate, Taizu and the first enfeoffed lords of feudal states are honored. For ancestral tablets before them, according to these numbers, temples should be destroyed after five generations, and they would no longer participate in di or xia sacrifices. Those included in di or xia offerings refer to the ancestors after Taizu, whose tablets are successively destroyed and then elevated for storage in two relocated temples. Even if a hundred generations pass, they will still be included in di or xia sacrifices." I respectfully submit that Emperor Xianzu and Yizhu are the ancestral tablets of those whose direct lineage has ended, preceding Taizu. According to the systems established since the Three Dynasties, they should no longer be included in di or xia rituals. The ancestral tablets of Daidzu are those from destroyed temples under Taizu; this corresponds to the Gongyang Commentary's statement: "Ancestral tablets from destroyed temples should be placed before Taizu." Carefully examining the records: Emperor Yuan of Han issued an edict, proposing to discontinue ancestral temples in commanderies and states as well as those for ancestors whose direct lineage had ended. Chancellor Wei Xuancheng proposed that the temples of Taishang Huang (Emperor Emeritus) and Emperor Xiaohui should be discontinued since their lines were complete; the tablet of Taishang Huang should be buried at Beiyuan, while Emperor Xiaohui's spirit tablet should be relocated to the Taizu Temple. The proposal was approved. Taishang Huang is the ancestor preceding Taizu; his tablet was buried in Beiyuan because it did not participate in di or xia rites. This situation parallels that of Emperor Xianzu and Yizi today. Emperor Xiaohui's tablet was relocated to the Taizu Temple, clearly indicating that descendants of Taizu are included in di and xia rites; this is analogous to the current situation with Emperor Daidzu Yuan Huangdi's spirit tablet. Since the Wei and Jin dynasties through to the Song, Qi, Chen, and Sui dynasties in succession, whenever a new dynasty was established by its founding emperor, six ancestral temples were set up, leaving the position of Taizu empty. From Taizu onward, after seven generations of emperors, Taizu would occupy the eastern-facing position, thus completing the system of seven ancestral temples. Ancestors before Taizu: during the reign of Emperor Mingdi of Wei, the tablets of Chushi were relocated to a temple in the outer estate and honored seasonally by officials such as Lingcheng; this was because their generational distance from the current dynasty remained relatively close. When Emperor Mingdi of Eastern Jin died, three ancestral lords including Zhengxi were relocated to the western chamber and named "tiao," serving as a standard for distant temples. When Emperor Kangdi died and Emperor Mudi ascended the throne, the ancestral tablet of Jingzhao was relocated to the western chamber. It too was called "tiao," following the previous rites, and thus excluded from di or xia sacrifices as well.
|
| | 祫禘下: |
國朝始饗四廟，宣、光并太祖、代祖神主祔於廟。至貞觀九年，將祔高祖於太廟，朱子奢請準禮立七廟，其三昭三穆，各置神主。太祖，依晉宋以來故事，虛其位，待遞遷方處之東嚮位。於是始祔弘農府君及高祖為六室，虛太祖之位而行禘祫。至二十三年，太宗祔廟，弘農府君乃藏於西夾室。文明元年，高宗祔廟，始遷宣皇帝於西夾室。開元十年，玄宗特立九廟，於是追尊宣皇帝為獻祖，復列於正室，光皇帝為懿祖，以備九室。禘祫猶虛太祖之位。祝文於三祖不稱臣，明全廟數而已。至德二載克復後，新作九廟神主，遂不造弘農府君神主，明禘祫不及故也。至寶應三年，祔玄宗、肅宗於廟，遷獻、懿二祖於西夾室，始以太祖當東嚮位次，獻、懿二祖為是太祖以前親盡神主，準禮禘祫不及，凡十八年。 |
| | Our dynasty initially honored four ancestral temples; the tablets of Xuan, Guang, Taizu, and Daidzu were all enshrined in the temple. In the ninth year of Zhenguan, when it was proposed to enshrine Emperor Gaozu in the Grand Temple, Zhu Zisheng requested that seven ancestral temples be established according to ritual standards, with three Zhao and three Mu positions each assigned a spirit tablet. Taizu's position should follow the precedent of Jin, Song and later dynasties; it remains empty until a future generation relocates an ancestor to place Taizu in the eastern-facing seat. Thus, the enshrinement of Hongnong Fu Jun and Emperor Gaozu began, forming six ancestral chambers, with Taizu's position left empty while di and xia sacrifices continued. In the twenty-third year, Emperor Taizong was enshrined in the ancestral temple; as a result, Hongnong Fu Jun's tablet was moved to be stored in the western side chamber. In the first year of Wenming, Emperor Gaozong was enshrined; this marked the beginning of relocating Emperor Xuan to the western side chamber. In the tenth year of Kaiyuan, Emperor Xuanzong specially established nine ancestral temples. As a result, Emperor Xuan was posthumously honored as Emperor Xianzu and re-enshrined in a main chamber; Emperor Guang was honored as Emperor Yizu to complete the nine chambers. The position of Taizu remained empty during di or xia sacrifices. In the sacrificial prayers, these three ancestors were not addressed as subjects; this clearly indicated that their status was preserved within the full number of ancestral temples. After the restoration in the second year of Dede, new spirit tablets for the nine ancestral temples were made; however, no tablet was created for Hongnong Fu Jun, clearly indicating that he was excluded from di and xia sacrifices. In the third year of Baoying, Emperor Xuanzong and Emperor Suzong were enshrined in the temple; as a result, the tablets of Emperors Xianzu and Yizu moved to the western side chambers. For the first time, Taizu occupied the eastern-facing position. Since Emperors Xian and Yi were ancestors before Taizu whose direct lineage had ended, according to ritual principles they should not be included in di or xia ceremonies; this arrangement lasted for eighteen years.
|
| | 祫禘下: |
至建中二年十月，將祫饗，禮儀使顏真卿狀奏：合出獻、懿二祖神主行事，其布位次第及東面尊位，請準東晉蔡謨等議為定。遂以獻祖當東嚮，以懿祖於昭位南嚮，以太祖於穆位北嚮，以次左昭右穆，陳列行事。且蔡謨當時雖有其議，事竟不行，而我唐廟祧，豈可為準？臣嶸等伏以嘗禘郊社，尊無二上，瘞毀遷藏，禮有義斷。獻、懿已為親盡之主，太祖以當東嚮之尊，一朝改移，實非典故。請宜復先朝故事，獻、懿神主藏於西夾室，以類祭法所謂「遠廟為祧，去祧為壇，去壇為墠，壇墠有禱則祭，無禱則止」。太祖既昭配天地，位當東嚮之尊。庶上守貞觀之首制，中奉開元之成規，下遵寶應之嚴式，符合經義，不失舊章。 |
| | In October of the second year of Jianzhon, as preparations were being made for an xia sacrifice, Li Yi Shi Yan Zhenqing submitted a report: It was proposed that the spirit tablets of Emperors Xianzhu and Yizhu should be brought out to participate in the ceremony. Regarding their placement order and the eastern-facing position of honor, it was requested that the proposal by Cai Mo of Eastern Jin dynasty be followed as precedent. Thus, Emperor Xianzu was placed in the eastern-facing position; Emperor Yizu was positioned to the south in a Zhao (paternal) ancestor's spot facing south; Taizu was placed to the north in a Mu (maternal) ancestor's spot facing north. The remaining ancestors were arranged accordingly on the left for Zhao and right for Mu, with their tablets displayed and rituals performed in order. Moreover, although Cai Mo proposed this at the time, the plan was never implemented; can our Tang dynasty's ancestral temple system possibly take it as a standard? Min Reng et al. respectfully submit that in matters of ancestral sacrifices, such as changdi (seasonal rites), jiao she (sacrifices to Heaven and Earth), reverence must be singular and supreme; the burial, destruction, relocation, or storage of tablets are all determined by ritual principles and moral judgment. Emperors Xianzu and Yi Zu have already become ancestors whose direct lineage has ended; Taizu, as the rightful holder of the eastern-facing position of highest honor, should not suddenly be displaced in a single day. This would indeed contradict established ritual traditions. We respectfully request that the precedent of previous dynasties be restored, and that the spirit tablets of Xianzu and Yizu be stored in the western side chambers. This aligns with what is stated in the ritual texts: "Distant temples are called tiao; those removed from tiao become tan (altars); those removed from tan become shan (open spaces). Sacrifices at tan or shan occur only when prayers are made, and cease otherwise." Since Taizu has already been honored by being paired with Heaven and Earth in sacrifices, his position should remain the eastern-facing one of supreme honor. This would allow us to uphold the original system established at the beginning of Zhenguan, honor the established regulations from Kaiyuan in the middle period, and follow the strict standards set during Baoying below. It aligns with classical principles and does not deviate from traditional rules.
|
| | 祫禘下: |
吏部郎中柳冕等十二人議曰： |
| | Liu Mian, Director of the Ministry of Personnel, and twelve others proposed:
|
| | 祫禘下: |
天子受命之君，諸侯始封之祖，皆為太祖。故雖天子，必有尊也，是以尊太祖也。故太祖以下，親盡而毀。洎秦滅學，漢不及禮，不列昭穆，不建迭毀。晉既失之，宋又因之。於是有違王廟之制，於是有虛太祖之位。不列昭穆，非所以示人有序也；不建迭毀，非所以示人有殺也；違王廟之制，非所以示人有別也；虛太祖之位，非所以示人有尊也。此禮之所由廢也。謹按：禮「父為士，子為天子，祭以天子，葬以士」。今獻祖祧也，懿祖亦祧也，唐未受命，猶士禮也。是故高祖、太宗以天子之禮祭之，不敢以太祖之位易之。今而易之，無乃亂先王之序乎？昔周有天下，追王太王、王季以天子之禮，及其祭也，親盡而毀之。漢有天下，尊太上皇以天子之禮，及其祭也，親盡而毀之。唐有天下，追王獻、懿二祖以天子之禮，及其祭也，親盡而毀之。則不可代太祖之位明矣。 |
| | The Son of Heaven who receives the mandate to rule, as well as feudal lords who first establish a fief, are all considered Taizu. Therefore, even though he is the Son of Heaven, there must be someone to revere above him; this is why Taizu is honored with supreme reverence. Thus, descendants below Taizu are excluded from ancestral rites once their direct lineage ends and their temples are destroyed. When the Qin dynasty suppressed learning and the Han failed to uphold ritual, they neither arranged ancestors in Zhao Mu order nor established a system of successive temple destruction. The Jin dynasty followed this error, and the Song continued it as well. Thus arose a violation of the Son of Heaven's ancestral temple system; thus arose an empty position for Taizu. Not arranging ancestors in Zhao Mu order is not how one demonstrates to people a sense of hierarchy and order; Not establishing the system of successive temple destruction does not show people that reverence diminishes with generational distance; Violating the Son of Heaven's temple regulations is not how one shows people distinctions in status and rank; Leaving Taizu's position empty does not demonstrate to people the existence of supreme reverence. This is how ritual was gradually abandoned. We respectfully submit: According to the rites, "If a father was an official and his son becomes Son of Heaven, he is honored with imperial sacrifices but buried according to the status of an official." Now, Xianzu belongs in the category of tiao (temples removed from ancestral rites), and Yizu also belongs to this category. Before the Tang received the mandate to rule, they were still subject to the rites for an official. Therefore, Gaozu and Taizong honored them with imperial rituals but dared not replace their status by granting them the position of Taizu. To change this now would not be to disrupt the order established by previous kings? In ancient times, when the Zhou dynasty ruled the realm, they honored Taiwang and Wangji as kings with imperial rites; yet upon their ancestral sacrifices, once the blood relation was exhausted, their temples were destroyed. When the Han dynasty ruled the realm, it honored Tai Shang Huang with imperial rites; yet during ancestral sacrifices, once their blood relation was exhausted, his temple was destroyed. When the Tang dynasty ruled the realm, it posthumously honored Xianzu and Yizu as kings with imperial rites; when ancestral sacrifices were conducted, once their blood relation had ended, their temples were destroyed. Thus, it is clearly evident that they cannot replace the position of Taizu.
|
| | 祫禘下: |
又按：周禮有先公之祧，先王之祧。先公之遷主，藏乎后稷之廟，其周未受命之祧乎？先王之遷主，藏之文武之廟，其周已受命之祧乎？故有二祧，所以異廟也。今獻祖以下之祧，猶先公也；太祖以下之祧，猶先王也。請築別廟以居二祖，則行周之禮，復古之道。故漢之禮，因於周也；魏之禮，因於漢也；隋之禮，因於魏也。皆立三廟，有二祧。又立私廟四於南陽，亦後漢制也。為人之子，事大宗降其私親，故私廟所以尊本宗也，太廟所以尊正統也。雖古今異時，文質異禮，而知禮之情與問禮之本者，莫不通其變，酌而行之。故上致其崇，則太祖屬尊乎上矣；下盡其殺，則祧主親盡於下矣；中處其中，則王者主祧於中矣。 |
| | Furthermore, according to Zhou rites, there are temples for "Xian Gong" (ancestors before kings) and "Xian Wang" (ancestral kings). The displaced ancestral tablets of Xian Gong are enshrined in the temple of Hou Ji. Are these not the tiao (temples for ancestors before the dynasty received its mandate) of the Zhou? The displaced ancestral tablets of Xian Wang are enshrined in temples for Wen and Wu. Are these not the tiao of the Zhou after it received its mandate? Thus, there were two categories of tiao, to distinguish between different ancestral temples. Now, the tiao below Xianzu are still akin to Xian Gong; the tiao below Taizu are similar to Xian Wang. We respectfully request that a separate temple be built to enshrine the two ancestors; this would implement Zhou rites and restore ancient principles. Thus, Han dynasty rituals were based on those of the Zhou; the Wei's rites followed those of the Han; and the Sui dynasty's rites were inherited from the Wei. All established three ancestral temples and maintained two tiao. They also built four private temples in Nanyang, which was a practice of the Later Han dynasty as well. As children, one serves the senior branch and lowers reverence for one's own family; thus private temples were established to honor the original clan, while the Grand Temple honored the legitimate lineage. Though times have changed from ancient to modern, and rituals differ in formality and substance, those who understand the spirit of ritual and its fundamental principles can all comprehend these changes and apply them appropriately. Therefore, by showing utmost reverence above, Taizu's status is elevated to the highest level; by diminishing reverence below, tiao ancestors are excluded from rites at their lowest generational distance. By maintaining balance in the middle, kings establish their ancestral status as central to the system of tiao.
|
| | 祫禘下: |
工部郎中張薦等議曰：「昔殷周以稷、契始封，為不遷之祖，其毀廟之主，皆稷、契之後，所以昭穆合祭，尊卑不差。如夏后氏以禹始封，遂為不遷之祖。故夏五廟，禹與二昭二穆而已。此則鯀之親盡，其主已遷。左氏既稱『禹不先鯀』，足明遷廟之主，雖屬尊於始封祖者，亦在合食之位矣。又據晉、宋、齊、梁、北齊、周、隋史，其太祖以上，並同禘祫，未嘗限斷遷毀之主。伏以南北八代，非無碩學巨儒，宗廟大事，議必精博，驗於史冊，其禮僉同。又詳魏晉宋齊梁北齊周隋故事，及貞觀、顯慶、開元禮所述，禘祫並虛東嚮。既行之已久，實群情所安。且太祖處清廟第一之室，其神主雖百代不遷，永歆烝嘗，上配天地，位於郊廟，無不正矣。若至禘祫之時，暫居昭穆之列，屈己申孝，以奉祖禰，豈非伯禹烝烝敬鯀之道歟？亦是魏晉及周隋之太祖，不敢以卑厭尊之義也。議者或欲遷二祖於興聖廟，及請別築室，至禘祫年饗之。夫祫，合也。此乃分食，殊乖禮意。又欲藏於西夾室，永不及祀，無異漢代瘞園，尤為不可。輒敢徵據正經，考論舊史，請奉獻、懿二祖與太祖並從昭穆之位，而虛東嚮。」 |
| | Zhang Jian, Director of the Ministry of Works, and others proposed: "In ancient times, Yin and Zhou traced their fief origins to Ji and Qi, who became unchangeable ancestors. The displaced ancestral tablets in destroyed temples were all descendants of Ji and Qi; thus Zhao Mu combined sacrifices without discrepancies in rank or status. For example, the Xia dynasty traced its fief origin to Yu, who then became an unchangeable ancestor. Thus, the five ancestral temples of the Xia included only Yu and two Zhao ancestors and two Mu ancestors. This indicates that Gun's blood relation had ended and his tablet was already transferred. The Zuo Zhuan states, "Yu did not precede Gun," clearly showing that the transferred ancestral tablets, even if they belong to ancestors more revered than the founder of a fief, still hold their place in combined sacrifices. Furthermore, according to the histories of the Jin, Song, Qi, Liang, Northern Qi, Zhou, and Sui dynasties, ancestors above Taizu were all included in Di and Xia sacrifices without ever limiting or excluding transferred ancestral tablets from destruction. We respectfully submit that in the eight dynasties of the Northern and Southern periods, there were no shortage of great scholars and Confucian masters. On matters as significant as ancestral temples, discussions were always thorough and extensive; verified by historical records, their rites were unanimously agreed upon. Careful examination of the precedents from the Wei, Jin, Song, Qi, Liang (Southern), Northern Qi, Zhou, and Sui, as well as those described in the Zhenguan, Xianqing, and Kaiyuan rites, shows that during Di and Xia sacrifices, all ancestral tablets were removed from the eastern-facing position. Since this practice has been followed for a long time, it indeed aligns with public sentiment and acceptance. Moreover, Taizu resides in the first chamber of the Grand Temple. His ancestral tablet, though never transferred for a hundred generations, is forever honored with sacrifices and offerings, matched above to heaven and earth, and its position at the altar and temple is perfectly appropriate. If during Di and Xia sacrifices his tablet is temporarily placed among Zhao Mu ancestors, subordinating itself to express filial devotion in honoring grandfathers and fathers, would this not reflect the respectful conduct of Boyu (Yu) toward Gun? This is also in line with how Taizu of the Wei, Jin, and Zhou-Sui dynasties did not dare violate the principle of subordinating the low to honor the high. Some who proposed this suggested relocating the two ancestors to Xingsheng Temple or requesting a separate chamber be built, and offering sacrifices during Di and Xia years. Xia means "to combine." This is a separate offering, which seriously violates the meaning of ritual. Some also wish to store them in western side chambers and never offer sacrifices, which is no different from the Han dynasty's Yi Yuan (burial ground for discarded tablets) and is especially unacceptable. We dare to cite the canonical texts and examine historical records, respectfully requesting that Xianzu and Yizu be honored alongside Taizu in Zhao Mu positions during sacrifices, with the eastern-facing position left empty."
|
| | 祫禘下: |
司勳員外郎裴樞議曰：「禮之必立宗子者，蓋為收是族人，東嚮之主，亦由是也。若祔於遠廟，無乃中有一閒，等上不倫。西位常虛，則太祖永厭於昭穆；異廟別祭，則祫享何主乎合食？永閟比於姜嫄，則推祥禖而無事。禮云：『親親故尊祖，尊祖故敬宗，敬宗故收族，收族故宗廟嚴，宗廟嚴故重社稷。』由是言之，太祖之上復有追尊之祖，則親親尊祖之義，無乃乖乎？太廟之外，輕置別祭之廟，則宗廟無乃不嚴，社稷無乃不重乎？且漢丞相韋玄成請瘞於園，晉徵士虞喜請瘞於廟兩階之閒。喜又引左氏說，古者先王日祭於祖考，月祀於曾高，時享及二祧，歲祫及壇墠，終禘及郊宗石室。是為郊宗之上，復有石室之祖，斯最近矣。但當時議所處石室，未有準的。喜請於夾室中。愚以為石室可據，所以處之之道未安。何者？夾室謂居太祖之下毀主，非是安太祖之上藏主也。未有卑處正位，尊在傍居，考理即心，恐非允協。今若建石室於園寢，遷神主以永安，採漢晉之舊章，依禘祫之一祭，修古禮之殘缺，為國朝之典故，庶乎春秋變之正禮，動也中者焉。」 |
| | Pei Shu, Assistant Director of the Office of Merit Records, proposed: "The reason rites require establishing a senior descendant is to unite the clan; thus, the eastern-facing ancestral tablet also depends on this principle. If enshrined in distant temples, would there not be a gap in the middle and an inconsistency in hierarchical order? Leaving the western position perpetually empty means Taizu will forever be subordinated to Zhao Mu. If separate temples and distinct sacrifices are established, then during combined offerings in Xia rituals, whose tablet should preside over the united sacrifice? To permanently seal them away like Jiang Yuan would be to abandon ancestral rites and make offerings meaningless. The Rites say: "Because of affection for one's kin, ancestors are revered; because ancestors are revered, the senior line is honored; because the senior line is honored, the clan remains united; because the clan is united, ancestral temples remain solemn; and because ancestral temples are solemn, the state and its people are valued." By this reasoning, if above Taizu there is a further ancestor honored posthumously, would not the principle of affection for kin and reverence for ancestors be violated? To lightly establish separate temples outside the Grand Temple would not this undermine the solemnity of ancestral rites and weaken the importance of state and people? Moreover, Han dynasty Chancellor Wei Xuancheng requested that tablets be buried in the garden, while Jin dynasty scholar Yu Xi recommended they be placed between the two steps of the temple. Yu Xi also cited the Zuo Zhuan, stating that in ancient times, kings offered daily sacrifices to their grandfathers and fathers, monthly rites to great-grandparents and high ancestors, seasonal offerings including tiao temples, annual Xia sacrifices at altars and courtyards, and final Di sacrifices reaching ancestral shrines and stone chambers. This indicates that above the temple of the Son of Heaven there was again an ancestor enshrined in a stone chamber, which is most recent evidence. However, at that time, discussions on where to place the stone chamber lacked clear standards. Yu Xi requested they be placed in side chambers. I believe the stone chamber can serve as a reference, but the method of placement remains unsatisfactory. Why is this so? Side chambers refer to the storage of destroyed tablets beneath Taizu, not a place for preserving tablets above Taizu. There is no precedent where a lower rank occupies the central position while higher ranks reside on the sides; examining this with reason, it seems unjust and inappropriate. If now we were to build a stone chamber in the garden and transfer ancestral tablets for eternal rest, drawing on Han and Jin precedents, following one unified sacrifice during Di and Xia rituals, repairing the fragmented rites of antiquity, and establishing this as imperial tradition, it would nearly align with the proper rites of change described in Spring and Autumn Annals, achieving a balanced approach."
|
| | 祫禘下: |
京兆府同官縣尉仲子陵議曰：「今儒者乃援『子雖齊聖，不先父食』之語，欲令已祧獻祖，權居東嚮，配天太祖，屈居昭穆，此不通之甚也。凡左氏『不先食』之言，且以正文公之逆祀，儒者安知非夏氏廟數未足之時，而言禹不先鯀乎！且漢之禘祫，蓋不足徵。魏晉已還，太祖皆近。是太祖之上，皆有遷主。歷代所疑，或引閟宮之詩而永閟，或因虞主之義而瘞園，或緣遠廟為祧以築宮，或言太祖實卑而虛位。唯東晉蔡謨憑左氏『不先食』以為說，欲令征西東嚮。均之數者，此最不安。且蔡謨此議，非晉所行。前有司不本謨改築之言，取『征西東嚮』之一句為萬代法，此不可甚也。臣又思之，永閟瘞園，則臣子之心有所不安；權虛正位，則太祖之尊無時而定。則別築一事，義差可安。且興聖之於獻祖，乃曾祖也，昭穆有序，饗祀以時。伏請奉獻、懿二祖遷祔於德明、興聖廟，此其大順也。或以祫者合也，今二祖別廟，是分食也，何合之為？臣以為德明、興聖二廟，每禘祫之年，亦皆饗薦，是以分食，奚疑於二祖乎？」 |
| | Zhong Ziling, County Magistrate of Tongguan in Jingzhao Fu, proposed: "Now some Confucian scholars cite the saying 'Though a son may be as wise and virtuous as possible, he does not precede his father at sacrifices,' wishing to have Xianzu, already removed from rites, temporarily occupy the eastern-facing position while Taizu, who is matched with heaven, is subordinated to Zhao Mu—this is an extremely flawed interpretation. The Zuo Zhuan's statement about 'not preceding in sacrifices' was originally used to criticize Duke Zheng of Jin for improper rites. How could Confucian scholars possibly know that this was not a reference to the Xia dynasty, when temple numbers were still insufficient, and Yu did not precede Gun?!" Moreover, Han dynasty Di and Xia rites are insufficient as evidence. Since the Wei and Jin dynasties onward, Taizu has always been close in generational proximity. Thus, above Taizu there were always transferred ancestral tablets. Throughout history, doubts have arisen: some cite the poem on sealed palaces to justify permanent sealing; others follow the meaning of Yu's tablet and bury them in gardens; still others build temples for distant ancestors as tiao; or claim Taizu is actually inferior and thus leave a position empty. Only in the Eastern Jin did Cai Mo cite the Zuo Zhuan's "not preceding in sacrifices" as justification, wishing to place the tablet of the Western Expeditionary General in the eastern-facing position. Among these various interpretations, this is the most unsatisfactory and unstable approach. Moreover, Cai Mo's proposal was not actually implemented in the Jin dynasty. Previously, officials did not follow Cai Mo's original suggestion to rebuild but instead took the phrase "Western Expeditionary General in eastern-facing position" as a rule for all generations—this is most unacceptable. I have also considered that permanently sealing and burying tablets in gardens would leave the hearts of subjects and descendants uneasy; temporarily leaving a central position empty would mean Taizu's supreme status is never firmly established. Therefore, building a separate structure for this purpose may be the most reasonable and acceptable solution. Moreover, Xingsheng is the great-grandfather of Xianzu; there is an orderly Zhao Mu relationship and timely sacrifices. We respectfully request that the ancestral tablets of Xianzu and Yizu be transferred to Deming and Xingsheng Temples; this would represent a great restoration of order. Some argue that Xia means "to combine," and now, with the two ancestors in separate temples, this is a divided offering—how can it be considered combined? I believe that the Deming and Xingsheng temples also receive offerings during Di and Xia years; thus, this is a form of divided sacrifice. What doubt remains regarding the two ancestors?"
|
| | 祫禘下: |
左司郎中陸淳奏曰：「臣竊尋七年百僚所議，考其意有四：一曰藏諸夾室，二曰置之別廟，三曰遷於園寢，四曰祔於興聖。藏諸夾室，是無饗獻之期，異乎周人藏於二祧之義，禮不可行也。置之別廟，始於魏明之說，禮經實無其文。晉義熙九年，雖立此議，以後亦無行者。遷於園寢，是亂宗廟之儀，既無所憑，殊乖禮意，事不足徵也。唯有祔於興聖之廟，禘祫之歲乃一祭之，庶乎合於禮者之體，而得變之正也。」 |
| | Lu Chun, Director of the Left Office, submitted: "I have secretly examined the discussions by officials in the seventh year and found four main proposals: one was to store them in side chambers; two, to place them in a separate temple; three, to transfer them to garden shrines; and four, to enshrine them at Xingsheng. Storing them in side chambers means there would be no fixed time for sacrifices, differing from the Zhou practice of enshrining tablets at two tiao temples; this is not in line with ritual and cannot be implemented. Placing them in a separate temple originated from the theory of Wei Ming, but classical rites do not actually support this claim. In 413 during the Yixi period of the Jin dynasty, although this proposal was made, it was never implemented afterward. Transferring them to garden shrines disrupts ancestral temple rituals; lacking a basis, it seriously violates the spirit of rites and is not worth following. Only by enshrining them in the Xingsheng Temple and offering one combined sacrifice during Di and Xia years would this nearly conform to the proper form of rites while achieving a legitimate adaptation."
|
