Volume 22 Treatises 2: Rites 2

建中元年三月，禮儀使上言：「東都太廟闕木主，請造以祔。」初，武后於東都立高祖、太宗、高宗三廟。至中宗已後，兩京太廟，四時並饗。至德亂後，木主多亡缺未祔。於是議者紛然，而大旨有三：「其一曰，必存其廟，遍立群主，時饗之。其二曰，建廟立主，存而不祭，若皇輿時巡，則就饗焉。其三曰，存其廟，瘞其主，駕或東幸，則飾齋車奉京師群廟之主以往。」議者皆不決而罷。

In the third month of Jianzhong 1, the Commissioner of Rites submitted: "The Eastern Capital Great Temple lacks wooden spirit tablets; please make them and attach them." The quote ended. Earlier, Wu Zetian had built three temples at Luoyang—to Gaozu, Taizong, and Gaozong. From Zhongzong on, both capitals' Grand Temples were fed in all four seasons. After the An Lushan rebellion, many tablets were lost or never re-enshrined. Thereupon the debaters were in an uproar, but the main points were three: "The first says that the temples must be preserved, all the tablets set up throughout, and seasonal offerings made to them. The second says that temples should be built and tablets established, preserved but not sacrificed to; if the imperial carriage makes a seasonal tour, then offerings should be made there. The third says that the temples should be preserved and the tablets buried; if the carriage perhaps travels east, then the ritual carriage should be adorned and the tablets of the capital temples reverently carried there." The quote ended. No faction prevailed, and the question lapsed.

貞元十五年四月，膳部郎中歸崇敬上疏：東都太廟，不合置木主。謹按典禮。虞主用桑，練主用栗，重作栗主，則埋桑主。所以神無二主，猶天無二日，土無二王也。今東都太廟，是則天皇后所建，以置武氏木主。中宗去其主而存其廟，蓋將以備行幸遷都之所也。且殷人屢遷，前八後五，前後遷都一十三度，不可每都而別立神主也。議者或云：「東都神主，已曾虔奉而禮之，豈可以一朝廢之乎？」且虞祭則立桑主而虔祀，練祭則立栗主而埋桑主，豈桑主不曾虔祀，而乃埋之？又所闕之主，不可更作，作之不時，非禮也。長慶元年二月，分司官庫部員外郎李渤奏：「太微宮神主，請歸祔太廟。

In the fourth month of the fifteenth year of Zhenyuan, Gui Chongjing, Bureau Director in the Provisioners Bureau, submitted a memorial: The Eastern Capital Great Temple should not have wooden tablets set up in it. Respectfully examining the canonical rites: the yu tablet used mulberry wood, and the lian tablet used chestnut wood. When the chestnut tablet was remade, the mulberry tablet was buried. This is because a spirit has no two tablets, just as Heaven has no two suns and earth has no two kings. Now the Eastern Capital Great Temple is what Empress Zetian built in order to place the Wu clan's wooden tablets there. Zhongzong removed those tablets but kept the temple, probably intending it as a place prepared for imperial travel or a move of the capital. Moreover, the Yin people repeatedly moved, eight times earlier and five times later, thirteen capital moves in all, and they could not have separately established spirit tablets in every capital. Some debaters say: "The Eastern Capital spirit tablets were once reverently honored with ritual; how can they be abolished in a single morning?" But at the yu sacrifice one sets up the mulberry tablet and reverently sacrifices to it, and at the lian sacrifice one sets up the chestnut tablet and buries the mulberry tablet. Can it be that the mulberry tablet was not once reverently sacrificed to, and yet it is buried? Moreover, missing tablets cannot be made again; to make them out of season is contrary to ritual. In the second month of the first year of Changqing, Li Bo, Vice Director of the Treasury in the eastern division, memorialized: "The spirit tablets in Taiwei Palace should be returned and attached in the Great Temple.

」敕付東都留守鄭絪商量聞奏。絪奏云：臣謹詳三代典禮，上稽高祖、太宗之制度，未嘗有並建兩朝、並饗二主之禮。天授之際，祀典變革。中宗初復舊物，未暇詳考典章，遂於洛陽創宗廟。是行遷都之制，實非建國之儀。及西歸上都，因循未廢。德宗嗣統，墜典克修，東都九廟，不復告饗。謹按《禮記》，仲尼答曾子問曰：「天無二日，土無二王，嘗、禘、郊、社，尊無二上。」所以明二主之非禮也。陛下接千載之大統，揚累聖之耿光，憲章先王，垂法後嗣。況宗廟之禮，至尊至重，違經黷祀，時謂不欽。特望擇三代令典，守高祖、太宗之憲度，鑒神龍權宜之制，遵建中矯正之禮，依經復古，允屬聖明。伏乙太微宮光皇帝三代、睿宗聖文孝武皇帝神主，參考經義，不合祔饗。至於遷置神主之禮，三代以降，經無明文。伏望委中書門下與公卿禮官質正詳定。

" An edict sent the matter to Eastern Capital Resident Commissioner Zheng Yin for deliberation and report. Yin memorialized: Your servant has carefully examined the canons and rites of the Three Dynasties, and has looked upward to the institutions of Gaozu and Taizong. There has never been a rite of establishing two courts side by side and offering to two sets of tablets side by side. During the Tianshou period the sacrificial canons were altered. When Zhongzong first restored the old order, he had no leisure to examine the regulations and statutes in detail, and so he created an ancestral temple at Luoyang. This was the system of moving the capital, not the rule for founding the state. When the court returned west to the Upper Capital, it was left in place by precedent and not abolished. When Dezong succeeded to the line, fallen canons were fully repaired, and the nine temples of the Eastern Capital no longer received announcement offerings. Respectfully according to the Book of Rites, when Zhongni answered Zengzi's question, he said: "Heaven has no two suns, earth has no two kings; at chang, di, jiao, and she, reverence has no two superiors." This makes clear that two sets of tablets are contrary to ritual. Your Majesty has received the great line of a thousand years, manifests the bright glory of accumulated sages, takes the former kings as statute, and leaves law to later heirs. How much more, since the rites of the ancestral temple are supremely honored and supremely weighty; to violate the classics and profane sacrifice is what the age calls irreverent. I especially hope that Your Majesty will select the excellent canons of the Three Dynasties, keep the constitutional measures of Gaozu and Taizong, take warning from the temporary system of Shenlong, and follow the correcting rites of Jianzhong, returning through the classics to antiquity; this truly belongs to sage brightness. Respectfully, the spirit tablets of three generations of Emperor Guang in Taiwei Palace and of Emperor Ruizong, the Sagely, Cultured, Filial, and Martial, when examined with reference to the meanings of the classics, should not be attached for offerings. As for the rite of moving and placing spirit tablets, from the Three Dynasties downward the classics have no clear text. I respectfully hope this may be entrusted to the Secretariat-Chancellery together with the dukes, ministers, and ritual officials for correction, examination, and detailed determination.

敕付所司。太常博士王彥威等奏議曰：謹按國初故事，無兩都並建宗廟、並行饗祭之禮。伏尋《周書》、《召誥》、《洛誥》之說，實有祭告豐廟、洛廟之文，是則周人兩都並建宗祧，至則告饗。然則兩都皆祭祖考，禮祀並興。自神龍復辟，中宗嗣位，廟既偕作，饗亦並行。天寶末，兩都傾陷，神主亡失。肅宗既復舊物，但建廟作主於上都。其東都神主，大曆中始於人間得之，遂寓於太微宮，不復祔饗。臣等謹按經傳，王者之制，凡建居室，宗廟為先，廟必有主，主必在廟。是則立廟兩都，蓋行古之道，主必在廟，實依禮經。今謹參詳，理合升祔。謹按光皇帝是追王，高宗、中宗、睿宗是祧廟之主，其神主合藏於太廟從西第一夾室。景皇帝是始封不遷之祖，其神主合藏於太廟從西第一室。高祖、太宗、玄宗、肅宗、代宗是創業有功親廟之祖。伏准《江都集禮》：「正廟之主，藏於太室之中。」《禮記》：「君廟之主，有故則聚而藏諸祖廟。」伏以德宗之下，神主未作，代宗之上，後主先亡，若歸本室，有虛神主。事雖可據，理或未安。今高祖已下神主，併合藏于太祖之廟，依舊准故事不饗。如陛下肆覲東後，移幸洛陽，自非祧主，合歸本室。其餘闕主，又當特作，而祔饗時祭、禘、祫如儀。臣又按國家追王故事，太祖之上，又有德明、興聖、懿祖別廟。今光皇帝神主，即懿祖也。伏緣東都先無前件廟宇，光皇帝神主今請權祔於太廟夾室，居元皇帝之上。如駕在東都，即請准上都式營建別廟，作德明、興聖、獻祖神主，備禮升祔。又於太廟夾室奉迎光皇帝神主歸別廟第四室，禘、祫如儀。或問曰：「禮，作栗主，瘞桑主。漢、魏並有瘞桑之議，大曆中亦瘞孝敬皇帝神主，今祔而不瘞，如之何？」答曰：「作主依神，理無可埋，漢魏瘞藏，事非允愜。孝敬尊非正統，廟廢而主獨存，從而瘞藏，為葉情理。」又問：「古者巡狩，必載遷主，今東都主又祔於廟。」答曰：「古者師行以遷主，無則主命，自非遷祖之主，別無出廟之文。凡邑有宗廟先君之主曰都，則兩都宗廟，各宜有主。」又問曰：「古者作主，必因虞、練，若主必歸祔，則室不可虛，則當補已亡之主，創當祔之主。禮經無說，如之何？」答曰：「虞、練作主，禮之正也。非時作主，事之權也。王者遭時為法，因事制宜，苟無其常，則思其變。如駕或東幸，廟仍虛主，即准肅宗廣德二年上都作主故事，特作闕主而祔。蓋主不可闕，故禮貴從宜，《春秋》之義，變而正之者。」臣伏思祖宗之主，神靈所憑，寓於太微，不入宗廟，據經復本，允屬聖明。

The edict went to the relevant offices. Wang Yanwei and other Erudites of the Court of Imperial Sacrifices memorialized in deliberation, saying: Respectfully according to the old precedents from the dynasty's beginning, there was no rite of both capitals establishing ancestral temples side by side and conducting offering sacrifices side by side. Respectfully searching the statements in the Book of Zhou, the Shao Announcement, and the Luo Announcement, there truly are texts of sacrificial announcement at the Feng temple and the Luo temple. This means that the Zhou people established ancestral temples in both capitals and, on arrival, made announcement offerings. Thus both capitals sacrificed to ancestors and deceased fathers, and rites and sacrifices were both raised. Since the Shenlong restoration, Zhongzong succeeded to the throne; the temples were both made, and offerings were also conducted in both. At the end of Tianbao, both capitals fell and the spirit tablets were lost. After Suzong recovered the old order, he only built temples and made tablets at the Upper Capital. The Eastern Capital spirit tablets were first found among the people during Dali, and were then lodged in Taiwei Palace, no longer attached or feasted. Your servants have carefully examined classics and commentaries: in the system of kings, whenever a residence is built, the ancestral temple comes first; a temple must have tablets, and tablets must be in the temple. Thus establishing temples in both capitals is probably carrying out the ancient way; that tablets must be in the temple truly follows the ritual classics. Now, careful examination shows that in principle they should be raised and attached. Respectfully, Emperor Guang is a posthumously honored king, and Gaozong, Zhongzong, and Ruizong are tablets of removed temples; their spirit tablets should be stored in the first side chamber from the west in the Great Temple. Emperor Jing is the first-enfeoffed ancestor who is not moved; his spirit tablet should be stored in the first chamber from the west in the Great Temple. Gaozu, Taizong, Xuanzong, Suzong, and Daizong are ancestors of the kin temples who founded the enterprise and had merit. Respectfully according to the Jiangdu Collected Rites: "The tablets of the principal temple are stored within the great chamber." The Book of Rites says: "When there is cause concerning the ruler's temple tablets, they are gathered and stored in the ancestral temple." Respectfully, below Dezong spirit tablets have not yet been made, while above Daizong later lords died before earlier ones; if they return to their original chambers, there will be empty spirit tablets. Though the matter has evidence, in principle it may not be settled. Now the spirit tablets from Gaozu downward should all be stored in the Grand Ancestor's temple and, as before and according to precedent, not be feasted. If Your Majesty displays himself in the east and moves the imperial carriage to Luoyang, those that are not removed tablets should return to their original chambers. For the remaining missing tablets, special tablets should again be made, and attached, feasted, seasonally sacrificed to, and offered di and xia according to the rites. Your servant further notes that, according to state precedents for posthumously honoring kings, above the Grand Ancestor there are also separate temples for Deming, Xingsheng, and Yizu. The present spirit tablet of Emperor Guang is Yizu. Since the Eastern Capital previously had none of these temples, we now request that Emperor Guang's spirit tablet be provisionally attached in the side chamber of the Great Temple, above Emperor Yuan. If the imperial carriage is in the Eastern Capital, then we request that, according to the Upper Capital model, separate temples be built; that spirit tablets be made for Deming, Xingsheng, and Xianzu and fully raised and attached with rites; and that Emperor Guang's spirit tablet be respectfully welcomed from the side chamber of the Great Temple back to the fourth chamber of the separate temple, with di and xia according to the rites. Someone may ask: "In ritual, chestnut tablets are made and mulberry tablets are buried. Han and Wei both had proposals to bury mulberry tablets, and during Dali the spirit tablet of Emperor Xiaojing was also buried. Now you would attach them and not bury them; what of this?" The answer is: "A tablet is made for the spirit to rely upon. In principle it cannot be buried. Han and Wei burial and storage were not truly satisfactory. Emperor Xiaojing's honor was not in the direct line; the temple was abolished but the tablet alone remained, and therefore burial and storage accorded with feeling and principle." Another may ask: "In antiquity, when the ruler toured the regions, he necessarily carried moved tablets. Now the Eastern Capital tablets are again attached in the temple." The answer is: "In antiquity, when an army went out, it took a moved tablet; without it there was no tablet command. Unless it was a moved ancestral tablet, there is no text for taking it out of the temple separately. Whenever a settlement has ancestral temples and tablets of former lords it is called a capital; thus the ancestral temples of the two capitals should each have tablets." Another may ask: "In antiquity, making tablets necessarily followed yu and lian. If tablets must return and be attached, then chambers cannot be empty; so one should supplement tablets already lost and create tablets that ought to be attached. The ritual classics have no statement of this. What of it?" The answer is: "Making tablets at yu and lian is the regular ritual. Making tablets out of season is an expedient matter. Kings make laws according to the times and create what is fitting according to the matter. If there is no constant rule, then one considers its alteration. If the carriage perhaps travels east and the temple still lacks tablets, then according to the precedent of making tablets at the Upper Capital in the second year of Guangde under Suzong, special missing tablets should be made and attached. Since tablets cannot be lacking, ritual values following what is fitting. In the meaning of the Spring and Autumn Annals, this is changing and thereby correcting." Your servant humbly thinks that the tablets of the ancestors and founders are what the spirits rely upon. Lodged in Taiwei and not entering the ancestral temple, they should, according to the classics, return to their proper place; this truly belongs to sage brightness.

至是下尚書省集議，而郎吏所議，與彥威多同。丞郎則各執所見，或曰「神主合藏于太微宮」；或云「併合埋瘞」；或云「闕主當作」；或云「輿駕東幸，即載上都神主而東」。咸以意言，不本經據。竟以紛議不定，遂不舉行。

The Secretariat then convened a joint review; the clerks' views largely matched Yanwei's. The directors and vice-directors each held to their views; some said, "The spirit tablets should be stored together in Taiwei Palace"; some said, "They should all be buried"; some said, "The missing tablets should be made"; some said, "If the imperial carriage travels east, then the spirit tablets of the Upper Capital should be carried east." Everyone argued from convenience, not from the classics. Debate deadlocked, and nothing was done.

八月，中書門下奏：「東都太廟九室神主，共二十六座，自祿山叛後，取太廟為軍營，神主棄於街巷，所司潛收聚，見在太微宮內新造小屋之內。其太廟屋室並在，可以修崇。大和中，太常博士議，以為東都不合置神主，車駕東幸，即載主而行。至今因循，尚未修建。望令尚書省集公卿及禮官、學官詳議。如不要更置，須有收藏去處。如合置，望以所拆大寺材木修建。既是宗室官居守，便望令充修東都太廟使，勾當修繕。」奉敕宜依。

In the eighth month, the Secretariat-Chancellery memorialized: "The spirit tablets of the nine chambers of the Eastern Capital Great Temple, twenty-six seats in all, after An Lushan rebelled and the Great Temple was taken as a military camp, were abandoned in the streets and lanes; the responsible offices secretly gathered them, and they are now inside a newly built small building within Taiwei Palace. The temple buildings still stood and could be restored. In Dahe, ritual officers had ruled that Luoyang should not keep its own tablets—that on eastern tours the emperor should carry tablets with him. That expedient had lingered; the temple was still unrepaired. They asked the Secretariat to gather ministers, ritualists, and scholars for a full review. If tablets were not to be reinstalled, a proper storehouse was needed. If they were, timber from dismantled monasteries should fund the rebuild. Since an imperial clansman holds the office of resident commissioner, we hope he will be ordered to serve as commissioner for repairing the Eastern Capital Great Temple and manage the repairs." The quote ended. The throne approved.

六年三月，太常博士鄭路等奏：「東都太微宮神主二十座，去年二月二十九日禮院分析聞奏訖。伏奉今月七日敕『此禮至重，須遵典故，宜令禮官、學官同議聞奏』者。臣今與學官等詳議訖，謹具分析如後：獻祖宣皇帝、宣莊皇后、懿祖光皇帝、光懿皇后、文德皇后、高宗天皇大帝、則天皇后、中宗大聖大昭孝皇帝、和思皇后、昭成皇后、孝敬皇帝、地敬哀皇后已前十二座，親盡迭毀，宜遷諸太廟，祔於興聖廟。禘祫之歲，乃一祭之。東都無興聖廟可祔，伏請且權藏於太廟夾室。未題神主十四座，前件神主既無題號之文，難伸祝告之禮。今與禮官等商量，伏請告遷之日，但瘞於舊太微宮內空閒之地。恭酌事理，庶協從宜。」制可。

In the third month of the sixth year, Zheng Lu and other Erudites of the Court of Imperial Sacrifices memorialized: "The Eastern Capital Taiwei Palace has twenty spirit tablets; on the twenty-ninth day of the second month last year, the Ritual Office finished analyzing the matter and reporting it. We have respectfully received the edict of the seventh day of this month: "This rite is most weighty and must follow the canons and precedents. Let the ritual officials and academic officials deliberate together and report." After consulting scholars they proposed: twelve tablets—from Xianzu and Xuanzhuang through Yizu, Wende, Gaozong, Zetian, Zhongzong, Hexian, Zhaocheng, Xiaojing, and Jing'ai—had passed the limit of mourning and should move to the capital temples and the Xingsheng shrine. In di and cha years they would receive one joint offering. Luoyang had no Xingsheng Temple; they asked to lodge the tablets temporarily in the Grand Temple's side chambers. Fourteen tablets bore no inscription, so the prayer of enshrinement could not be spoken. With ritual officers they agreed that on the day of removal those fourteen should be buried in unused ground inside the old Taiwei compound. Reverently weighing the matter and its principle, this may accord with what is fitting." The quote ended. Approved.

太常博士段瑰等三十九人奏議曰：禮之所立，本於誠敬；廟之所設，實在尊嚴。既曰薦誠，則宜統一。昔周之東西有廟，亦可徵其所由。但緣卜洛之初，既須營建，又以遷都未決，因議兩留。酌其事情，匪務於廣，祭法明矣。伏以東都太廟，廢已多時，若議增修，稍乖前訓。何者？東都始制寢廟於則天后、中宗之朝，事出一時，非貞觀、開元之法，前後因循不廢者，亦踵鎬京之文也。《記》曰：「祭不欲數，數則煩。」天寶之中，兩京悉為寇陷，西都廟貌如故，東都因此散亡。是知九廟之靈，不欲歆其煩祀也。自建中不葺之後，彌歷歲年。今若廟貌惟新，即須室別有主。舊主雖在，大半合祧，必几筵而存之，所謂宜祧不祧也。孔子曰，「當七廟五廟，無虛主也」，謂廟不得無主者也。舊主如有留去，新廟便合創添。謹按《左傳》云：「祔練作主。」又戴聖云：「虞而立几筵。」如或過時成之，便是以凶幹吉。創添既不典，虛廟又非儀。考諸禮文，進退無守。或曰「漢于郡國置宗廟凡百餘所，今止東西立廟，有何不安」者。當漢氏承秦焚燒之餘，不識典故，至於廟制，率意而行。比及元、成二帝之間，貢禹、韋玄成等繼出，果有正論，竟從毀除。足知漢初不本於禮經，又安可程法也？或曰「几筵不得復設，廟寢何妨修營，侯車駕時巡，便合於所載之主」者。究其終始，又得以論之。昨者降敕參詳，本為欲收舊主，主既不立，廟何可施？假令行幸九州，一一皆立廟乎？」愚以為廟不可修，主宜藏瘞，或就瘞於坎室，或瘞於兩階間，此乃百代常行不易之道也。其年九月敕：「段瑰等詳議，東都不可立廟。李福等別狀，又有異同。國家制度，須合典禮，證據未一，則難建立。宜並令赴都省對議，須歸至當。」工部尚書薛元賞等議：伏以建中時，公卿奏請修建東都慶廟，當時之議，大旨有三：其一曰，必存其廟，備立其主，時饗之日，以他官攝行。二曰，建廟立主，存而不祭，皇輿時巡，則就饗焉。三曰，存其廟，一瘞其主。臣等立其三議，參酌禮經，理宜存廟，不合置主。謹按《禮祭義》曰：「建國之神位，右社稷而左宗廟。」《禮記》云：「君子將營宮室，宗廟為先。」是知王者建邦設都，必先宗廟、社稷。況周武受命，始都于豐，成王相宅，又卜於洛，烝祭歲於新邑，冊周公於太室。故《書》曰：「戊辰，王在新邑，烝祭歲。王入太室祼。」成王厥後復立于豐，雖成洛邑，未嘗久處。逮于平王，始定東遷。則周之豐、鎬，皆有宗廟明矣。又按，曾子問「廟有二主」，夫子對以「天無二日，土無二王，嘗、禘、郊、社，尊無二上，未知其為禮」者。昔齊桓公作二主，夫子譏之，以為偽主。是知二主不可並設，亦明矣。夫聖王建社以厚本，立廟以尊祖，所以京邑必有宗社。今國家定周、秦之兩地，為東西之兩宅，辟九衢而立宮闕，設百司而嚴拱衛，取法玄象，號為京師。既嚴帝宅，難虛神位，若無宗廟，何謂皇都？然依人者神，在誠者祀，誠非外至，必由中出，理合親敬，用交神明。位宜存於兩都，廟可偕立；誠難專於二祭，主不並設。或以《禮》云「七廟五廟無虛主」，是謂不可無主。所以天子巡狩，亦有所尊，尚飾齋車，載遷主以行。今若修廟瘞主，同東都太廟，九室皆虛，既違於經，須徵其說。臣復探賾禮意，因得盡而論之。所云「七廟五廟無虛主」，是謂見饗之廟不可虛也。今之兩都，雖各有廟，禘祫饗獻，斯皆親奉於上京，神主几筵，不可虛陳於東廟。且《禮》云：「唯聖人為能饗帝，孝子為能饗親。」昔漢韋玄成議廢郡國祀，亦曰：「立廟京師，躬親承事，四海之內，各以其職來祭。」人情禮意，如此較然。二室既不並居，二廟豈可偕祔？但所都之國，見饗之廟，既無虛室，則葉通經議者，又欲置主不饗，以俟巡幸。昔魯作僖公之主，不于虞、練之時，《春秋》書而譏之。合祔之主，作非其時，尚為所譏。今若置不合祔之主，不因時而作，違經越禮，莫甚於此。豈有九室合饗之主，而有置而不饗之文？兩廟始創于周公，二主獲譏于夫子。自古製作，皆范周孔，舊典猶在，足可明徵。臣所以言東都廟則合存，主不合置。今將修建廟宇，誠不虧於典禮。其見在太微宮中六主，請待東都建修太廟畢，具禮迎置於西夾室，閟而不饗，式彰陛下嚴祀之敬，以明聖朝尊祖之義。

Thirty-nine men including Duan Gui, Erudite of the Court of Imperial Sacrifices, memorialized in deliberation: What ritual establishes is rooted in sincerity and reverence; what temples establish truly lies in honor and solemnity. Since it is called presenting sincerity, it should be unified. In the past Zhou had temples in east and west, and this may also be used to verify its origin. But because at the first divination of Luo it was necessary to build, and because the move of the capital had not yet been decided, they debated retaining both. Measuring its circumstances, it was not a matter of seeking breadth; the sacrificial law is clear. Respectfully, the Eastern Capital Great Temple has been abandoned for a long time. If one discusses enlarging and repairing it, this rather violates the former instructions. Why? The Eastern Capital first made sleeping halls and temples during the reigns of Empress Zetian and Zhongzong. The matter came from a single time and was not the law of Zhenguan or Kaiyuan. That it was not abolished by later precedent merely followed the text of Haojing. The Record says: "Sacrifice should not be frequent; if frequent, it becomes burdensome." In the Tianbao era both capitals fell to rebels; the Western Capital temple appearance remained as before, while the Eastern Capital was thereby scattered and lost. From this we know that the spirits of the nine temples did not wish to enjoy burdensome sacrifices. Since Jianzhong did not repair it, years have extended all the more. If now the temple appearance is renewed, then every chamber must have its own tablet. Though the old tablets still exist, more than half ought to be removed; if one keeps them on offering mats, this is what is called failing to remove what should be removed. Confucius said, "When there are seven temples or five temples, none has an empty tablet," meaning that a temple cannot lack a tablet. If old tablets are to be kept or removed, then a new temple would require additions to be created. Respectfully according to the Zuo Tradition: "At attachment after lian, a tablet is made." Dai Sheng also says: "After yu, the mat and seat are established." If one makes them after the proper time, this is using mourning to interfere with auspicious rite. Creating additions is not canonical, and empty temples are also not proper ritual. Examining the ritual texts, there is no secure course forward or back. Some say, "Han set up ancestral temples in commanderies and kingdoms, more than a hundred in all; now we only establish temples east and west. What is wrong with that?" But the Han inherited the aftermath of Qin burning and destruction and did not know the canons and precedents; as to temple institutions, they acted as they pleased. By the time of Emperors Yuan and Cheng, Gong Yu, Wei Xuancheng, and others appeared in succession and indeed had correct arguments, and in the end the temples were destroyed and abolished. This is enough to know that the beginning of Han was not based in the ritual classics; how can it be taken as a model? Some say, "The mats and seats cannot be set up again, but what harm is there in repairing the temple and sleeping hall, waiting until the imperial carriage makes a seasonal tour, and then using the tablets carried there?" If one investigates its beginning and end, this too can be discussed. The edict recently issued for detailed examination was originally intended to gather in the old tablets. Since the tablets are not to be established, how can the temple be used? Suppose the court travels through the nine provinces: would temples be established one by one in all of them? In my foolish view, the temple cannot be repaired, and the tablets should be stored by burial, either buried in a pit-chamber or buried between the two steps. This is the constant way, practiced for a hundred generations and not to be changed. In the ninth month of that year an edict said: "Duan Gui and the others have deliberated in detail that the Eastern Capital cannot establish a temple. Li Fu and others have another submission, with further differences. The institutions of the state must accord with canonical ritual. Since the evidence is not unified, establishment is difficult. Let them all go to the Department of State Affairs and debate face to face; the matter must return to what is most fitting." Xue Yuanshang, Minister of Works, and others deliberated: Respectfully, in Jianzhong, the dukes and ministers memorialized requesting repair and construction of the Eastern Capital Qing temple. At that time the deliberation had three main points. The first said that the temple must be preserved, all its tablets fully established, and on days of seasonal offering other officials should act in carrying out the rite. The second said that a temple should be built and tablets established, preserved but not sacrificed to; when the imperial carriage makes a seasonal tour, then offerings should be made there. The third said to preserve the temple and bury its tablets. We set up these three proposals, and after weighing them against the ritual classics, in principle it is proper to preserve the temple but not proper to place tablets. Respectfully according to the Sacrificial Meaning in the Rites: "In establishing the spirit positions of a state, the altars of soil and grain are on the right, and the ancestral temple on the left." The Book of Rites says: "When a gentleman is about to build palace chambers, the ancestral temple comes first." From this we know that when kings establish a state and set up a capital, they must first have ancestral temple and altars of soil and grain. Moreover King Wu of Zhou received the mandate and first made his capital at Feng; King Cheng inspected the residence and again divined at Luo; he offered the year sacrifice in the new settlement and invested the Duke of Zhou in the great chamber. Therefore the Documents says: "On wuchen, the king was in the new settlement and offered the year sacrifice. The king entered the great chamber and poured libation." Afterward King Cheng again established himself at Feng; though he completed Luo, he never long resided there. By King Ping he first fixed the eastern move. Thus it is clear that Zhou's Feng and Hao both had ancestral temples. Again, when Zengzi asked about "two tablets in a temple," the Master's answer, "Heaven has no two suns, earth has no two kings; at chang, di, jiao, and she, reverence has no two superiors; I do not know that this is ritual," was because in the past Duke Huan of Qi made two tablets, and the Master criticized it as a false tablet. From this it is also clear that two tablets cannot be set up side by side. Sage kings establish altars to thicken the root and set up temples to honor ancestors; therefore a capital city must have ancestral temple and altars. Now the state has fixed the lands of Zhou and Qin as its eastern and western residences, opened ninefold avenues and set up palaces and gates, established the hundred offices and made guards and defenses solemn, taking the dark images as model and calling them capitals. Since the imperial residence is made solemn, it is difficult to leave the spirit position empty. If there is no ancestral temple, how is it an imperial capital? Yet spirits depend on people, and sacrifice lies in sincerity. Sincerity does not arrive from outside; it must come from within. In principle, personal reverence is needed to commune with the spirits. The positions should exist in both capitals, and temples may be established together; sincerity is difficult to devote to two sacrifices, and tablets are not set up side by side. Some take the ritual statement "seven temples and five temples have no empty tablets" to mean that there can be no lack of tablets. Therefore when the Son of Heaven tours the regions, there is also something honored; the ritual carriage is adorned and carries the moved tablet. Now if the temple is repaired and the tablets buried, so that the Eastern Capital Great Temple has nine chambers all empty, this violates the classics, and its explanation must be sought. Your servants have again probed the subtle meaning of ritual and thereby can discuss it fully. What is meant by "seven temples and five temples have no empty tablets" is that temples presently receiving offerings cannot be empty. In the two capitals of today, though each has a temple, di, xia, offerings, and presentations are all personally performed at the Upper Capital; the spirit tablets and mats cannot be emptily displayed in the eastern temple. Moreover the ritual says: "Only a sage can feast the Lord on High; only a filial son can feast his kin." When Wei Xuancheng of Han deliberated abolishing commandery and kingdom sacrifices, he also said: "Set up temples in the capital, personally and reverently serve them, and within the four seas each comes to sacrifice according to his office." Human feeling and ritual meaning are this clear. Since two chambers cannot both be occupied, how can two temples both attach tablets? Only in the capital where they are presently offered, with no empty chambers in the presently feasted temple, does this accord with general classic-based discussion. Some wish to place tablets but not feast them, waiting for an imperial tour. In the past Lu made Duke Xi's tablet not at the time of yu or lian, and the Spring and Autumn Annals recorded and criticized it. A tablet that should be attached, if made at the wrong time, was still criticized. If now one sets up tablets that should not be attached and makes them out of season, nothing violates the classics and oversteps ritual more than this. How could there be tablets meant for the offerings of nine chambers, yet a text allowing them to be placed and not feasted? The two temples were first created by the Duke of Zhou; the two tablets were criticized by the Master. Since antiquity, institutions have all taken Zhou and Confucius as their model. The old canons remain and are sufficient as clear evidence. This is why your servants say that the Eastern Capital temple should be preserved, but tablets should not be placed. Now repairing and building the temple buildings truly does not impair the canons and rites. As for the six tablets presently in Taiwei Palace, we request that after the Eastern Capital Great Temple has been repaired and completed, they be welcomed with full rites and placed in the western side chamber, closed away and not feasted, in order to display Your Majesty's reverent respect for sacrifice and make clear the sage court's meaning in honoring the ancestors.

吏部郎中鄭亞等五人議：「據禮院奏，以為東都太廟既廢，不可復修，見在太微宮神主，請瘞於所寓之地。有乖經訓，不敢雷同。臣所以別進議狀，請修祔主，並依典禮，兼與建中元年禮儀使顏真卿所奏事同。臣與公卿等重議，皆以為廟固合修，主不可瘞，即與臣等別狀意同。但眾議猶疑東西二廟，各設神主，恐涉廟有二主之義，請修廟虛室，乙太微宮所寓神主藏於夾室之中。伏以六主神位，內有不祧之宗，今用遷廟之儀，猶未合禮。臣等猶未敢署眾狀，蓋為闕疑。」

Zheng Ya, Bureau Director of Personnel, and five others deliberated: "According to the Ritual Office memorial, since the Eastern Capital Great Temple has already been abandoned, it cannot be repaired again; the spirit tablets now in Taiwei Palace should be buried at the place where they are lodged. That strayed from the classics; they would not sign. They filed a separate opinion: restore the temple, remake and enshrine the tablets per canon, matching Yan Zhenqing's memorial from Jianzhong 1. In renewed debate with the grandees, all agreed: rebuild the temple, do not bury the tablets—their view matched the separate memorial. Yet many still feared two capitals each keeping tablets implied two lords in one temple; they proposed restoring empty chambers and housing the Taiwei tablets in side rooms. Six of those spirit-lords were unfilleted forebears; applying removal rites to them still seemed uncanonical. Your servants still do not dare sign the general submission, because doubts remain." The quote ended.

太學博士直弘文館鄭遂等七人議曰：「夫論國之大事，必本乎正而根乎經，以臻于中道。聖朝以廣孝為先，以得禮為貴，而臣下敢不以經對。三論六故，已詳於前議矣。再捧天問，而陳乎諸家之說，求於典訓，考乎大中，廟有必修之文，主無可置之理。何則？正經正史，兩都之廟可徵。《禮》稱『天子不卜處太廟』，『擇日卜建國之地，則宗廟可知』。則廢廟之說，恐非所宜廢。謹按《詩》、《書》、《禮》三經及漢朝兩史，兩都並設廟，而載主之制，久已行之。敢不明徵而去文飾，援據經文，不易前見，東都太廟，合務修崇，而舊主當瘞，請于太微宮所藏之所。皇帝有事于洛，則奉齋車載主以行。」

Zheng Sui, Erudite of the Grand Academy serving in the Hongwen Pavilion, and seven others deliberated: "In discussing the great affairs of the state, one must base them on correctness and root them in the classics, in order to reach the middle way. This dynasty prizes filial piety and true ritual—how could ministers answer with anything but the canon? Three positions and six precedents had already been laid out. Asked again from the throne, they surveyed every school against the classics: temples must be repaired; tablets could not simply be installed. For what reason? Because orthodox classics and histories attest temples in both capitals. The Rites says the Son of Heaven does not divine the Grand Temple's site, and that when he divines where to found the state, the temples are already implied. To abandon a temple, then, is what ought not be abandoned. The Odes, Documents, Rites, and both Han histories show both capitals with temples and long-standing tablet rites. They cited text plainly: restore the Eastern Capital Grand Temple; bury the old tablets where the Taiwei Palace had held them. When the emperor has affairs in Luoyang, the tablets should be reverently carried in the ritual carriage." The quote ended.

」太常博士顧德章議曰：夫禮雖緣情，將明厥要，實在得中，必過禮而求多，則反虧於誠敬。伏以神龍之際，天命有歸，移武氏廟于長安，即其地而置太廟，以至天寶初復，不為建都。而設議曰：「中宗立廟於東都，無乖舊典。」徵其意，不亦謬乎？又曰「東都太廟，至於睿宗、玄宗，猶奉而不易」者。蓋緣嘗所尊奉，不敢輒廢也。今則廢已多時，猶循莫舉之典也。又曰「雖貞觀之始，草創未暇，豈可謂此事非開元之法」者。謹按定《開元六典敕》曰：「聽政之暇，錯綜古今，法以《周官》，作為《唐典》。覽其本末，千載一朝。《春秋》謂考古之法也。行之可久，不曰然歟？」此時東都太廟見在，《六典》序兩都宮闕，西都具太廟之位，東都則存而不論，足明事出一時，又安得曰「開元之法」也？又三代禮樂，莫盛于周。昨者論議之時，便宜細大，取法于周，遷而立廟。今立廟不因遷，何美之而不能師之也？又曰「建國神位，右社稷而左宗廟，君子將營宮室，宗廟為先」者。謹按《六典》，永昌中則天以東都為神都。爾後漸加營構，營室百司，於是備矣。今之宮室百司，乃武氏改命所備也。上都已建國立宗廟，不合引言。又曰：「東都洛陽祭孝宣等五帝，長安祭孝成等三帝」。以此為置廟之例，則大非也。當漢兩處有廟，所祭之帝各別。今東都建廟作主，與上都盡同，概而論之，失之甚者。又曰「今或東洛復太廟，有司同日侍祭，以此為數，實所未解」者。謹按天寶三載詔曰：「頃四時有事於太廟，兩京同日。自今已後，兩京各宜別擇日。」載在祀典，可得而詳。且立廟造主，所以祭神，而曰存而勿祀，出自何經？「當七廟五廟無虛主」，而欲立虛廟，法于何典？前稱廟貌如故者，即指建中之中，就有而言，以為國之先也。前以非時不造主者，謂見有神主，不得以非時而造也。若江左至德之際，主並散亡，不可拘以例也。或曰「廢主之瘞，請在太微宮」者。謹按天寶二年敕曰：「古之制禮，祭用質明，義兼取于尚幽，情實緣於既沒。我聖祖澹然當在，為道之法，既殊有盡之期，宜展事生之禮。自今已後，每至聖祖宮有昭告，宜改用卯時」者。今欲以主瘞于宮所，即與此敕全乖。又曰「主不合瘞，請藏夾室」者。謹按前代藏主，頗有異同。至如夾室，宜用以序昭穆也。今廟主俱不中禮，則無禘祫之文。又曰「君子將營宮室，以宗廟為先，則建國營宮室而宗廟必設。東都既有宮室，而太廟不合不營」。凡以論之，其義斯勝。而西周、東漢，並曰兩都，其各有宗廟之證，經史昭然，又得以極思於揚榷。《詩》曰：「其繩則直，縮板以載，作廟翼翼。」《大雅》「瓜瓞」，言豐廟之作也。又曰：「于穆清廟，肅雍顯相。」洛邑既成，以率文王之祀。此《詩》言洛之廟也。《書》曰：「成王既至洛，烝祭歲，文王騂牛一。」又曰「裸於太室」，康王又居豐，「命畢公保釐東郊。」豈有無廟而可烝祭，非都而設保釐？則《書》東西之廟也。逮于後漢卜洛，西京之廟亦存。建武二年，於洛陽立廟，而成、哀、平三帝祭於西京。一十八年，親幸長安，行禘禮，當時五室列於洛都，三帝留於京廟，行幸之歲，與合食之期相會，不奉齋車，又安可以成此禮？則知兩廟周人成法，載主以行，漢家通制。或以當虛一都之廟為不可，而引「七廟無虛主」之文。《禮》言一都之廟，室不虛主，非為兩都各廟而不可虛也。既聯出徵之辭，更明載主之意，因事而言，理實相統，非如詩人更可斷章以取義也。古人求神之所非一，奉神之意無二，故廢桑主，重作栗主，既事理之，以明其一也。或又引《左氏傳》築郿凡例，謂「有宗廟先君之主曰都」，而立建主之論。按魯莊公二十八年冬，築郿，《左傳》為築發凡例，《穀梁》譏因藪澤之利，《公羊》稱避凶年造邑之嫌。三傳異同，左氏為短。何則？當春秋二百年間，魯凡城二十四邑，唯郿一邑稱築，其二十三邑，豈皆有宗廟先君之主乎；執此為建主之端，又非通論。或又曰：「廢主之瘞，何以在於太微宮所藏之所；宜舍故依新，前已列矣。」按瘞主之位有三：或於北牖之下，或在西階之間，廟之事也。其不當立之主，但隨其所以瘞之。夫主瘞乎當立之廟，斯不然矣。以在所而言，則太微宮所藏之所，與漢之寢園無異。歷代以降，建一都者多，兩都者少。今國家崇東西之宅，極嚴奉之典，而以各廟為疑，合以建都故事，以相質正，即周、漢是也。今詳議所徵，究其年代，率皆一都之時，豈可以擬議，亦孰敢獻酬於其間？詳考經旨，古人謀寢必及於廟，未有設寢而不立廟者。國家承隋氏之弊，草創未暇，後雖建於垂拱，而事有所合。其後當干戈寧戢之歲，文物大備之朝，歷於十一聖，不議廢之。豈不以事雖出於一時，廟有合立之理，而不可一一革也。今洛都之制，上自宮殿樓觀，下及百辟之司，與西京無異。鑾輿之至也，雖廝役之賤，必歸其所理也。豈先帝之主，獨無其所安乎？時也，虞主尚瘞，廢主宜然。或以馬融、李舟二人稱「寢無傷於偕立，廟不妨於暫虛」，是則馬融、李舟，可法于宣尼矣。以此擬議，乖當則深。或稱「凡邑有宗廟先君之主曰都，無曰邑，邑曰築，都曰城」者。謹按春秋二百四十年間，惟郿一邑稱築。如城郎、費之類，各有所因，或以他防，或以自固，謂之盡有宗廟，理則極非。或稱「聖主有復古之功，簡冊有考文之美，五帝不同樂，三王不同禮，遭時為法，因事制宜」。此則必作有為，非有司之事也。如有司之職，但合一一據經；變禮從時，則須俟明詔也。凡不修之證，略有七條：廟立因遷，一也；已廢不舉，二也；廟不可虛，三也；非時不造主，四也；合載遷主行，五也；尊無二上，六也；《六典》不書，七也。謹按文王遷豐立廟，武王遷鎬立廟，成王遷洛立廟，今東都不因遷而欲立廟，是違因遷立廟也。謹按《禮記》曰：「凡祭，有其廢之，莫敢舉也。有其舉之，莫敢廢也。」今東都太廟，廢已八朝，若果立之，是違已廢不舉也。謹按《禮記》曰：「當七廟五廟無虛主。」今欲立虛廟，是違廟不可虛也。謹按《左傳》：「丁丑，作僖公主。」《記》又曰：「過時不祭，禮也。」合禮之祭，過時猶廢，非禮之主，可以作乎？今欲非時作主，是違非時不作主也。謹按《曾子問》：「古者師行以遷廟主行乎？孔子曰：天子巡狩，必以遷廟主行，載于齋車，言必有尊也。今也取七廟之主以行，則失之矣。」皇氏云：「遷廟主者，載遷一室之主也。」今欲載群廟之主以行，是違載遷之主也。謹按《禮記》曰：「天無二日，土無二王。嘗、禘、郊、社，尊無二上也。」今欲兩都建廟作主，是違尊無二上也。謹按《六典》序兩都宮闕及廟宇，此時東都有廟不載，是違《六典》不書也。遍考書傳，並不合修。浸以武德、貞觀之中，作法垂範之日，文物大備，儒彥畢臻，若可修營，不應議不及矣。《記》曰：樂由天作，禮以地制。天之體，動也。地之體，止也。」此明樂可作，禮難變也。伏惟陛下誠明載物，莊敬禦天，孝方切於祖宗，事乃求于根本。再令集議，俾定所長。臣實職司，敢不條白以對。

Gu Dezhang, Erudite of the Court of Imperial Sacrifices, deliberated: Although ritual follows feeling, to make clear its essentials truly lies in obtaining the mean. If one seeks more by exceeding ritual, then sincerity and reverence are instead impaired. Respectfully, during the Shenlong period, when Heaven's mandate had returned, the Wu clan temple was moved to Chang'an and the Great Temple was set up in its place, down to the beginning of Tianbao, but this was not done to establish a capital. Yet the deliberation says: "Zhongzong established a temple in the Eastern Capital, and this does not violate the old canons." Examining its meaning, is this not mistaken? It also says, "The Eastern Capital Great Temple, down to Ruizong and Xuanzong, was still reverently maintained and not changed." This was probably because what had once been honored and maintained was not dared to be suddenly abolished. Now it has already been abandoned for a long time, and thus follows the canon that what is not raised should not be raised. It also says, "Although at the beginning of Zhenguan there was rough founding and no leisure, how can one say that this matter was not the law of Kaiyuan?" Respectfully according to the edict fixing the Kaiyuan Six Codes: "In leisure from attending government, We interwove ancient and recent, took the Zhou Offices as law, and made the Tang Code. Looking at its beginning and end, a thousand years are one morning. The Spring and Autumn Annals calls this the law of examining antiquity. If it can be practiced for long, is it not so?" At this time the Eastern Capital Great Temple existed. The Six Codes, in setting out the palaces of the two capitals, gives the place of the Great Temple for the Western Capital, but for the Eastern Capital it preserves and does not discuss it. This is enough to show that the matter arose from one time. How can it be called "the law of Kaiyuan"? Again, the rites and music of the Three Dynasties were nowhere more flourishing than in Zhou. In yesterday's deliberations, matters large and small were conveniently modeled on Zhou, moving and then establishing a temple. Now one would establish a temple without moving; why admire Zhou yet not be able to imitate it? It also says, "In establishing the spirit positions of a state, the altars of soil and grain are on the right and the ancestral temple on the left; when a gentleman is about to build palace chambers, the ancestral temple comes first." Respectfully according to the Six Codes, in Yongchang, Zetian made the Eastern Capital into the Divine Capital. Thereafter construction gradually increased, and palace chambers and the hundred offices were then complete. Today's palace chambers and hundred offices are what the Wu clan's changed mandate completed. Since the Upper Capital had already established the state and set up ancestral temples, these texts should not be cited. It also says: "The Eastern Capital Luoyang sacrificed to Emperors Xiaoxuan and the other five emperors, while Chang'an sacrificed to Emperors Xiaocheng and the other three emperors." Taking this as precedent for placing temples is greatly wrong. When Han had temples in two places, the emperors sacrificed to in each were different. Now building temples and making tablets in the Eastern Capital would be entirely the same as in the Upper Capital; to discuss them in the same way is a serious error. It also says, "Now if the Eastern Capital Luoyang again has a Great Temple, the responsible offices may attend the sacrifice on the same day; taking this as frequency, we truly do not understand." Respectfully according to an edict of the third year of Tianbao: "Recently, when there are affairs in the Great Temple in the four seasons, the two capitals have used the same day. From now on, the two capitals should each choose a separate day." This is recorded in the sacrificial canons and can be examined in detail. Moreover, establishing temples and making tablets is for sacrificing to spirits; if one says to preserve them but not sacrifice, from what classic does this come? "Seven temples and five temples should have no empty tablets"; if one wishes to establish an empty temple, on what canon is this modeled? Earlier, when the temple appearance was said to be as before, this meant that in Jianzhong, pointing to what already existed, it was taken as preceding the state. Earlier, when it was said tablets should not be made out of season, this meant that existing spirit tablets could not be made out of season. As for Jiangzuo during the Zhide period, the tablets were all scattered and lost, and it cannot be bound by this precedent. Some say, "For burying abolished tablets, please put them at Taiwei Palace." Respectfully according to an edict of the second year of Tianbao: "In ancient ritual, sacrifices used dawn, taking also the meaning of honoring darkness, because feeling truly followed what had already died. Our Sage Ancestor is serenely present. The law of serving the Way is already different from a term that has an end. The rite for serving the living should be displayed. From now on, whenever there is an announcement at the Sage Ancestor's palace, change it to the mao hour." Now wishing to bury the tablets at the palace site entirely violates this edict. It also says, "The tablets should not be buried; please store them in the side chamber." Respectfully according to former dynasties, storing tablets had many differences. As for side chambers, they should be used to order zhao and mu. Now the temple tablets all fail to accord with ritual, so there is no text for di or xia. It also says, "When a gentleman is about to build palace chambers, he takes the ancestral temple first; therefore when a state is established and palace chambers built, the ancestral temple must be set up. Since the Eastern Capital has palace chambers, the Great Temple should not fail to be built." In general terms, this meaning is stronger. Western Zhou and Eastern Han are both called two capitals; the evidence that each had ancestral temples is clear in classics and histories, and can be considered to the utmost in weighing the matter. The Odes says: "Its cord is straight; the boards are drawn tight; the temple was built in solemn beauty." In the Great Odes, Gua Die speaks of building the Feng temple. It also says: "Solemn is the clear temple; reverent and harmonious are the brilliant assistants." Luo had been completed in order to lead the sacrifices to King Wen. This is the Odes speaking of the Luo temple. The Documents says: "After King Cheng arrived at Luo, he offered the year sacrifice: one red ox to King Wen." It also says he "poured libation in the great chamber." King Kang later resided at Feng and "commanded the Duke of Bi to protect and regulate the eastern suburbs." How could there be a year sacrifice without a temple? How could a regulator be set up if it was not a capital? Thus the Documents show eastern and western temples. When Later Han divined for Luo, the Western Capital temples still remained. In the second year of Jianwu, temples were established at Luoyang, while Emperors Cheng, Ai, and Ping were sacrificed to in the Western Capital. In the eighteenth year, the emperor personally went to Chang'an and performed the di rite. At that time the five chambers were arranged in the Luo capital and three emperors remained in the capital temples. If the year of imperial travel coincided with the time for combined feasting and no ritual carriage was used, how could this rite have been completed? Thus we know that the two temples were a completed law of the Zhou people, and carrying tablets was a common institution of the Han house. Some consider it unacceptable that one capital's temple be empty and cite the text "the seven temples have no empty tablets." The ritual speaks of one capital's temples, where a chamber is not empty of a tablet; it does not mean that when two capitals each have temples, neither may be empty. Since the phrase appears together with going on campaign, it further clarifies the meaning of carrying tablets; it speaks from the matter, and the principles are truly connected, not like poets from whom one may cut off a phrase to seize a meaning. The places where ancient people sought spirits were not one, but the intention in serving spirits was not double. Therefore the mulberry tablet was abolished and the chestnut tablet remade; once the matter had been put in order, this made its unity clear. Some also cite the Zuo Tradition's general rule for building Mei, saying "a settlement that has ancestral temples and tablets of former lords is called a capital," and use this to argue for establishing tablets. In the twenty-eighth year of Duke Zhuang of Lu, in winter, Mei was built. The Zuo Tradition makes this a general rule for building; the Guliang criticizes making use of marsh and woodland profit; the Gongyang calls it avoiding suspicion about building a settlement in a bad year. The three commentaries differ, and Zuo is the weakest. Why? During the 200 years of the Spring and Autumn, Lu walled twenty-four settlements; only Mei alone is called "built." Did all twenty-three other settlements have ancestral temples and tablets of former lords? To hold this as the beginning of the argument for establishing tablets is not a comprehensive theory. Some also say, "As to burying abolished tablets, why should it be at the place where Taiwei Palace stores them? It is fitting to abandon the old and follow the new; this has already been set out." According to the places for burying tablets, there are three: sometimes below the northern window, sometimes between the western steps; these are temple matters. As for tablets that should not be established, they are simply buried wherever they are. That a tablet should be buried in a temple that ought to be established is not so. Speaking from the place, the storage site at Taiwei Palace is no different from Han sleeping gardens. Since successive dynasties, many have built one capital and few have had two capitals. Now the state honors the eastern and western residences and reaches the utmost in solemn service. If there is doubt about having temples in each, it should be corrected by the precedents for establishing capitals, namely Zhou and Han. Examining what the current deliberations cite in detail and investigating the eras, most are from times of one capital. How can they be compared? And who would dare offer responses among them? Examining the purport of the classics, ancient men planning sleeping halls necessarily reached the temples; there has never been a case of setting up sleeping halls without establishing temples. The state inherited the troubles of Sui and had no leisure in rough founding. Later, though it was established in Chuigong, the matter had something fitting in it. Afterward, in years when war had been quieted and in courts where culture and institutions were fully prepared, through eleven sages it was not debated for abolition. Was this not because, though the matter came from one time, the temple had a principle by which it should be established, and could not be changed item by item? Now the Luoyang capital's system, above from palaces, halls, towers, and observatories, down to the offices of all officials, is no different from the Western Capital. When the imperial carriage arrives, even the lowest servants must return to what they administer. How can the tablets of former emperors alone have no place to rest? At that time yu tablets were still buried; abolished tablets should be so. Some take Ma Rong and Li Zhou's two statements, "sleeping halls are not harmed by being established together; temples are not hindered by being temporarily empty," and then Ma Rong and Li Zhou can be models equal to Confucius. To compare the matter in this way greatly violates what is fitting. Some say, "Any settlement with ancestral temples and tablets of former lords is called a capital; without them it is called a settlement. A settlement is built, a capital is walled." Respectfully, over 240 years of the Spring and Autumn, only the one settlement Mei is called built. As for walling Lang and Fei, each had its own cause, sometimes for other defense, sometimes to secure itself. To say they all had ancestral temples is in principle extremely wrong. Some say, "The sage ruler has the merit of restoring antiquity; the written records have the beauty of examining culture. The Five Emperors did not use the same music, and the Three Kings did not use the same ritual; meeting the times, they made law; according to the matter, they created what was fitting." This would require active creation and is not the business of the responsible offices. As for the office of responsible officials, it should only cite the classics one by one. If ritual is to be changed according to the times, one must wait for a clear edict. In all, the evidence against repairing has roughly seven points: temples are established because of a move, first; what has been abolished is not raised again, second; temples cannot be empty, third; tablets are not made out of season, fourth; one should carry a moved tablet, fifth; reverence has no two superiors, sixth; the Six Codes does not record it, seventh. Respectfully, King Wen moved to Feng and established a temple; King Wu moved to Hao and established a temple; King Cheng moved to Luo and established a temple. Now the Eastern Capital did not arise from a move, yet one wishes to establish a temple; this violates establishing temples because of a move. Respectfully, the Book of Rites says: "Whenever a sacrifice has been abolished, none dares raise it; when it has been raised, none dares abolish it." Now the Eastern Capital Great Temple has been abolished for eight reigns. If it is indeed established, this violates not raising what has been abolished. Respectfully, the Book of Rites says: "When there are seven temples or five temples, there are no empty tablets." Now wishing to establish an empty temple violates the rule that temples cannot be empty. Respectfully, the Zuo Tradition says, "On dingchou, Duke Xi's tablet was made." The Record also says: "When the time has passed, not sacrificing is ritual." If a sacrifice in accord with ritual is abolished when its time has passed, can a tablet that is not ritual be made? Now wishing to make tablets out of season violates not making tablets out of season. Respectfully, Zengzi asked: "In antiquity, when an army went out, did it take a moved temple tablet?" Confucius said: "When the Son of Heaven tours the regions, he necessarily takes a moved temple tablet, carried in the ritual carriage, meaning that there must be something honored. Nowadays if one takes the tablets of the seven temples to go, it is a mistake." Master Huang says: "A moved temple tablet means carrying the tablet of one newly moved chamber." Now wishing to carry the tablets of all the temples violates carrying the moved tablet. Respectfully, the Book of Rites says: "Heaven has no two suns, earth has no two kings. At chang, di, jiao, and she, reverence has no two superiors." Now wishing to build temples and make tablets in both capitals violates "reverence has no two superiors." Respectfully, the Six Codes sets out the palaces and temple buildings of the two capitals. At that time the Eastern Capital had a temple but it is not recorded; this violates the Six Codes not recording it. Examining books and commentaries throughout, none accord with repairing. Moreover in Wude and Zhenguan, days when laws were made and models handed down, culture and institutions were fully prepared and Confucian worthies had all arrived; if it could be repaired, the debates should not have failed to reach it. The Record says: "Music is made from Heaven; ritual is regulated by earth. Heaven's body is movement; earth's body is stillness." This makes clear that music can be made, while ritual is hard to change. I humbly think that Your Majesty's sincerity and clarity carry things, and your solemn reverence governs Heaven. Your filial piety is earnestly directed to the ancestors, and the matter seeks the root and foundation. You have again ordered assembled deliberation, causing the stronger position to be fixed. Your servant truly holds the office, and dares not fail to set out the articles in reply.

德章又有上中書門下及禮院詳議兩狀，並同載於後。其一曰：伏見八月六日敕，欲修東都太廟，令會議事。此時已有議狀，准禮不合更修。尚書丞郎已下三十八人，皆同署狀。德章官在禮寺，實忝司存，當聖上嚴禋敬事之時，會相公尚古黜華之日，脫國之祀典，有乖禮文，豈唯受責於曠官，竊懼貽恥於明代。所以勤勤懇懇，將不言而又言也。昨者異同之意，盡可指陳。一則以有都之名，便合立廟；次同欲崇修廟宇，以候時巡。殊不知廟不合虛，主惟載一也。謹按貞觀九年詔曰：「太原之地，肇基王業，事均豐、沛，義等宛、譙，約禮而言，須議立廟。」時秘書監顏師古議曰：「臣傍觀祭典，遍考禮經，宗廟皆在京師，不於下土別置。昔周之豐、鎬，實為遷都，乃是因事便營，非云一時別立。」太宗許其奏，即日而停。由是而言，太原豈無都號，太原爾時猶廢，東都不立可知。且廟室惟新，即須有主，主既藏瘞，非虛而何？是有都立廟之言，不攻而自破矣。又按《曾子問》曰：「古者師行，必以遷廟主行乎？孔子曰：天子巡狩，必以遷廟主行，載于齋車，言必有尊也。今也取七廟之主以行，則失矣。」皇氏云：「遷廟主者，惟載新遷一室之主也。」未祧之主，無載行之文。假使候時巡，自可修營一室，議構九室，有何依憑？夫宗廟，尊事也，重事也，至尊至重，安得以疑文定論。言苟不經，則為擅議。近者敕旨，凡以議事，皆須一一據經。若無經文，任以史證。如或經史皆不據者，不得率意而言。則立廟東都，正經史無據，果從臆說，無乃前後相違也。《書》曰：「三人占，則從二人之言。」會議者四十八人，所同者六七人耳，比夫二三之喻，又何其多也！夫堯、舜之為帝，迄今稱詠之者，非有他術異智者也，以其有賢臣輔翼，能順考古道也。故堯之書曰「若稽古帝堯。」《孔氏傳》曰：「能順考古道。」傳說佐殷之君，亦曰「事不師古，匪說攸聞。」考之古道既如前，驗以國章又如此，將求典實，無以易諸。伏希必本正經，稍抑浮議，踵皋、夔之古道，法周、孔之遺文，則天下守貞之儒，實所幸甚。其餘已具前議。其二曰：夫宗廟之設，主於誠敬，旋觀典禮，貳則非誠。是以匪因遷都，則不別立廟宇。《記》曰：「天無二日，土無二王，嘗、禘、郊、社，尊無二上。」又曰：「凡祭，有其廢之，莫敢舉也。有其舉之，莫敢廢也。」則東都太廟，廢已多時，若議增修，稍違前志。何者？聖曆、神龍之際，武后始復明辟，中宗取其廟易置太廟焉，本欲權固人心，非經久之制也。伏以所存神主，既請祧藏，今廟室惟新，即須有主。神主非時不造，廟寢又無虛議，如修復以俟時巡，惟載一主，備在方冊，可得而詳。又引經中義有數等，或是弟子之語，或是他人之言。今廟不可虛，尊無二上，非時不造主，合載一主行，皆大聖祖及宣尼親所發明者，比之常據，不可同塗。又丘明修《春秋》，悉以君子定褒貶，至陳泄以忠獲罪，晉文以臣召君，於此數條，不復稱君子，將評得失，特以宣尼斷之。《傳》曰：「危疑之理，須聖言以明也。」或以東都不同他都，地有壇社宮闕，欲議權葺，似是無妨。此則酌於意懷，非曰經據也。但以遍討今古，無有壇社立廟之證，用以為說，實所未安。謹按上自殷、周，傍稽故實，除因遷都之外，無別立廟之文。制曰：「自古議禮，皆酌人情。必稷嗣知幾，賈生達識，方可發揮大政，潤色皇猷，其他管窺，蓋不足數。公卿之議，實可施行，德章所陳，最為淺近，豈得苟申獨見，妄有異同？事貴酌中，理宜從眾。宜令有司擇日修崇太廟，以留守李石充使勾當。」六年三月，擇日既定，禮官既行，旋以武宗登遐，其事遂寢。

Dezang filed two further opinions to the Secretariat and Court of Rites, copied below. The first said: Respectfully, I have seen the edict of the sixth day of the eighth month, wishing to repair the Eastern Capital Great Temple and ordering assembled deliberation on the matter. At that time there was already a deliberative submission, according to ritual it should not be repaired. Thirty-eight men, including the directors and vice directors of the Department of State Affairs and below, all jointly signed the submission. Dezhang's office is in the Court of Ritual, and I truly am unworthy of its responsibilities. At a time when the sage sovereign solemnly sacrifices and reverently serves, and when the chief minister honors antiquity and rejects ornament, if the state's sacrificial canons had something contrary to the ritual text, how would I merely receive blame for neglecting my office? I privately fear leaving shame to a bright age. Therefore, earnestly and sincerely, I would speak even when I ought not speak. Yesterday's different opinions can all be pointed out. One took the mere existence of the name "capital" to mean that a temple should be established; another likewise wished to honor and repair the temple buildings to await a seasonal tour. They did not understand that a temple should not be empty and that only one tablet is carried. Respectfully according to an edict of the ninth year of Zhenguan: "The land of Taiyuan began the royal enterprise; the matter is equal to Feng and Pei and the meaning equal to Wan and Qiao. Speaking according to ritual, establishment of a temple should be discussed." At that time Yan Shigu, Director of the Palace Library, deliberated: "Your servant has looked broadly at the sacrificial canons and examined the ritual classics throughout. Ancestral temples are all in the capital and are not separately placed in lower lands. In the past Zhou's Feng and Hao were truly moved capitals; they were built according to events, not separately established at the same time." Taizong approved his memorial, and it was stopped that very day. Speaking from this, how could Taiyuan have lacked the title of capital? Since Taiyuan was still abolished at that time, it is clear the Eastern Capital should not be established. Moreover, if the temple chambers are renewed, then they must have tablets. Since the tablets are stored by burial, how is this not empty? Thus the claim that a capital must establish a temple collapses without being attacked. Again according to Zengzi's question: "In antiquity, when an army went out, did it necessarily go with the moved temple tablet?" Confucius said: "When the Son of Heaven tours the regions, he necessarily takes the moved temple tablet, carrying it in the ritual carriage, meaning that there must be something honored. Nowadays, if one takes the tablets of the seven temples to go, it is a mistake." Master Huang says: "Moved temple tablet means only the tablet of one newly moved chamber is carried." For tablets not yet removed, there is no text for carrying them. Even if one waits for a seasonal tour, one may repair and build one chamber. What basis is there for debating construction of nine chambers? The ancestral temple is an honored matter and a weighty matter. Being most honored and most weighty, how can doubtful texts be used to fix an argument? If speech is not canonical, it is arbitrary deliberation. Recently the edict has meant that whenever matters are debated, each must cite the classics one by one. If there is no classic text, historical evidence may be used. If neither classics nor histories are relied on, one must not speak from personal opinion. Establishing a temple in the Eastern Capital has no evidence in correct classics or histories. If indeed it follows conjecture, would that not contradict what came before and after? The Documents says: "When three men divine, follow the words of two." There were forty-eight men in the assembled debate; those who agreed were only six or seven. Compared with the analogy of two or three, how many more is this! That Yao and Shun are praised as emperors down to the present was not because they had other methods or strange wisdom, but because they had worthy ministers assisting them and could accord with and examine the ancient way. Therefore the Canon of Yao says, "Examining antiquity, Emperor Yao." Kong's commentary says: "He could accord with and examine the ancient way." Fu Yue, assisting the ruler of Yin, also said: "As for affairs not modeled on antiquity, they are not what Yue has heard." Examination of the ancient way is already as above, and testing it by the state's regulations is also like this. If one seeks canonical reality, there is nothing by which to change it. I humbly hope that everything must be based on the correct classics, that floating opinions be somewhat restrained, and that Your Majesty follow the ancient way of Gao and Kui and model the surviving texts of Zhou and Confucius. Then the scholars under Heaven who keep to correctness will truly be fortunate. The rest is already set out fully in the previous deliberation. The second said: The setting up of ancestral temples is governed by sincerity and reverence. Looking through the canons and rites, duplication is not sincerity. Therefore, unless it follows a capital move, temple buildings are not separately established. The Record says: "Heaven has no two suns, earth has no two kings; at chang, di, jiao, and she, reverence has no two superiors." It also says: "Whenever a sacrifice has been abolished, none dares raise it; when it has been raised, none dares abolish it." Thus the Eastern Capital Great Temple has been abolished for a long time. If enlargement and repair are discussed, this somewhat violates the former intention. Why? During the Shengli and Shenlong periods, Empress Wu first restored the bright ruler, and Zhongzong took her temple and changed it into the Great Temple; this originally was meant temporarily to fix people's hearts and was not a lasting institution. Respectfully, since the surviving spirit tablets have already been requested for removed storage, if the temple chambers are now renewed, there must be tablets. Spirit tablets are not made out of season, and temple sleeping halls also have no theory of emptiness. If repair and restoration is to await a seasonal tour, only one tablet is carried; this is fully in the records and can be examined. Also, the meanings cited in the classics have several classes. Some are words of disciples, some are statements of other people. Now that temples cannot be empty, reverence has no two superiors, tablets are not made out of season, and one tablet should be carried on travel are all points personally clarified by the Great Sage Ancestor and Confucius. Compared with ordinary evidence, they cannot be treated on the same path. Again, when Qiu Ming compiled the Spring and Autumn Annals, he generally used "the gentleman" to fix praise and blame. But when Chen Xie suffered punishment for loyalty and Duke Wen of Jin summoned his ruler as a minister, in these several passages he no longer says "the gentleman"; when judging gain and loss, he specially used Confucius to decide it. The Tradition says: "For principles that are dangerous or doubtful, the sage's words are needed to clarify them." Some take the Eastern Capital as unlike other capitals, since the land has altars, palaces, and gates, and wish to discuss temporary repair, which seems to have no harm. This is weighing by personal thought and is not classic evidence. But when ancient and recent cases are searched throughout, there is no proof that altars and shrines require establishment of temples. To use this as an argument is truly unsettled. Respectfully examining upward from Yin and Zhou and broadly checking precedents, apart from cases following a capital move there is no text for separately establishing temples. The imperial decision said: "Since antiquity, deliberating ritual has always weighed human feeling. Only if one were as Jisi in knowing the subtle or Jia Yi in penetrating understanding could one unfold great government and adorn the imperial plan; other narrow views are scarcely worth counting. The deliberation of the dukes and ministers can truly be carried out. What Dezhang has stated is most shallow and near; how could he merely extend his own view and recklessly create differences? The matter values weighing the mean, and in principle one should follow the many. Let the responsible offices choose a day to repair and honor the Great Temple, with Resident Commissioner Li Shi serving as commissioner to manage the work." In the third month of the sixth year, after the day had been selected and the ritual officers had already set out, Wuzong soon died, and the matter was therefore shelved.

宣宗即位，竟迎太微宮神主祔東都太廟，禘祫之禮，盡出神主合食于太祖之前。

Xuanzong at last welcomed the Taiwei tablets into the Eastern Capital Grand Temple; at di and cha all tablets were offered together before the Great Ancestor.

《貞觀禮》，祫享，功臣配享于廟庭，禘享則不配。當時令文，祫禘之日，功臣並得配享，將行禘祭，有司請集禮官學士等議，太常卿韋挺等一十八人議曰：「古之王者，富有四海，而不朝夕上膳於宗廟者，患其禮過也。故曰：『春秋祭祀，以時思之。』至於臣有大功享祿，其後孝子率禮，潔粢豐盛，禮、祀、烝、嘗，四時不輟，國家大祫，又得配焉。所以昭明其勳，尊顯其德，以勸嗣臣也。其禘及時享，功臣皆不應預。故周禮六功之官，皆配大烝而已。先儒皆取大烝為祫祭。高堂隆、庾蔚之等多遵鄭學，未有將為時享。又漢、魏祫祀，皆在十月，晉朝禮官，欲用孟秋殷祭，左僕射孔安國啟彈，坐免者不一。梁初誤禘功臣，左丞何佟之駁議，武帝允而依行。降洎周、齊，俱遵此禮。竊以五年再殷，合諸天道，一大一小，通人雅論，小則人臣不預，大則兼及功臣。今禮禘無功臣，誠謂禮不可易。」乃詔改令從禮。至開元中改修禮，復令禘祫俱以功臣配饗焉。

The Zhenguan Rites paired meritorious subjects in the courtyard at cha, not at di. A later ordinance allowed pairing at both cha and di. When a di sacrifice was about to be performed, the responsible offices requested that ritual officials, scholars, and others be assembled to deliberate. Wei Ting, Director of the Court of Imperial Sacrifices, and eighteen others deliberated: "Ancient kings possessed all within the four seas, yet did not present meals morning and evening in the ancestral temple, because they were concerned that the ritual would be excessive. Ancient kings held the four seas yet did not daily feast the ancestors, lest ritual grow excessive. Hence: spring and autumn offerings—memory at the proper season. Ministers of great merit, once enfeoffed, received seasonal li, si, zheng, and chang from filial heirs; at the great cha the state might pair them too. But at di and ordinary seasonal rites they should not appear. Zhou Rites pairs the six grades of merit only at the great zheng. Earlier scholars identified great zheng with cha. Gao Tanglong, Yu Weizhi, and others followed Zheng Xuan—none applied it to seasonal feasts. Han and Wei held cha in the tenth month; Jin officers wanted the seventh-month yin rite—Kong Anguo remonstrated, and many lost office. Early Liang wrongly paired merit at di; He Tongzhi objected, and Emperor Wu agreed. Northern Zhou and Qi kept the same rule. Twice in five years—great and small yin—matches heaven's rhythm: the small excludes ministers; the great includes merit. Now in ritual, di has no meritorious ministers; this truly means ritual cannot be changed." The quote ended. An edict brought the ordinance back in line with the classics. Kaiyuan's ritual revision again allowed merit at both di and cha.

高宗上元三年十月，將祫享於太廟。時議者以《禮緯》「三年一祫，五年一禘」、《公羊傳》云「五年而再殷祭」，議交互莫能斷決。太學博士史璨等議曰：「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，明年當禘於群廟。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。自爾已後，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『有事于武宮』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『有事于襄宮』是也。如上所云，則禘已後隔三年祫，已後隔二年禘。此則有合禮經，不違《傳》義。」自此依璨等議為定。

In the tenth month of the third year of Shangyuan under Gaozong, a xia offering was about to be made in the Great Temple. Scholars cited the Rites Weft—cha every three years, di every five—and Gongyang's "twice in five years"; no line prevailed. Shi Can and other Erudites of the Grand Academy deliberated: "According to the Correct Meaning of the Book of Rites, citing Zheng Xuan's Record of Di and Xia: "The Spring and Autumn Annals says: Duke Xi died in the twelfth month of his thirty-third year. In Wen's second year, eighth month, day dingmao, a great offering at the Grand Temple. Gongyang asks: what is a great offering? It is xia." The quote ended. Three years' mourning done, the new ruler cha'd in year two and di'd at the group temples in year three. Xi and Xuan both di'd in year eight—five years between di rites. So: year two cha, year three di. Thereafter, twice in five years: year six cha, year eight di. Duke Zhao year ten: Qi Gui died; year thirteen should have seen cha, but the Pingqiu congress sent him to Jin that winter. Year fourteen cha, fifteen di—the Annals' "affairs at Wugong." Year eighteen cha, twenty di. Year twenty-three cha, twenty-five di. Zhao's twenty-fifth year—"affairs at Xiang Palace"—marks the same pattern. As stated above, after a di sacrifice three years pass until xia, then two years until the next di. This fits the ritual classics and does not violate the Commentaries." From then on Can's proposal was adopted as the rule.

開元六年秋，睿宗喪畢，祫享於太廟。自後又相承三年一祫，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：禘祫二禮，俱為殷祭，祫為合食祖廟，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。然而祭不欲數，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》、《周官·宗伯》，鄭玄注解，高堂所議，並云「國君嗣位，三年喪畢，祫于太祖。明年禘於群廟。自爾已後，五年再殷，一祫一禘。」漢、魏故事，貞觀實錄，並用此禮。又按《禮緯》及《魯禮禘祫注》云，三年一祫，五年一禘，所謂五年而再殷祭也。又按《白虎通》及《五經通義》、許慎《異義》、何休《春秋》、賀循《祭議》，並云三年一禘。何也？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，並為再祫，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。說者或云：「禘祫二禮，大小不侔，祭名有殊，年數相舛。祫以三紀，抵小而合；禘以五斷，至十而周。有茲參差，難以通計。」竊以三祫五禘之說，本出《禮緯》，五歲再殷之數，同在其篇，會通二文，非相詭也。蓋以禘後置祫，二周有半，舉以全數，謂之三年，譬如三年一閏，只用三十二月也。其禘祫異稱，各隨四時，秋冬為祫，春夏為禘。祭名雖異，為殷則同，譬如礿、祠、烝、嘗，其體一也。鄭玄謂祫大禘小，傳或謂祫小禘大，肆陳之間，或有增減，通計之義，初無異同。蓋象閏之法，相傳久矣。惟晉代陳舒有三年一殷之議，自五年、八年又十一、十四，尋其議文所引，亦以象閏為言。且六歲再殷，何名象閏？五年一禘，又奚所施？矛盾之說，固難憑也。夫以法天之度，既有指歸，稽古之理，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。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：鄭玄宗高堂，則先三而後二；徐邈之議，則先二而後三。謹按鄭氏所注，先三之法，約三祫五禘之文，存三歲五年之位。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，三十二月而遙，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，其間尚偏。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，實准三年，於此置祫，不違文矣，何必拘滯隔三正乎？蓋千慮一失，通儒之蔽也。徐氏之議，有異於是，研核周審，最為可憑。以為二禘相去，為月六十，中分三十，置一祫焉。若甲年夏禘，丙年冬祫，有象閏法，毫釐不偏。三年一祫之文，既無乖越；五歲再殷之制，疏數有均。校之諸儒，義實長久。今請依據以定二殷，預推祭月，周而復始。

In the sixth year of Kaiyuan, that autumn, when Ruizong's mourning ended, a xia offering was held at the Grand Temple. Thereafter the practice again was xia every three years and di every five years, each cycle counted on its own without aligning the numbers. By the twenty-seventh year there had been five di and seven xia in all. That year, after the summer di was completed, winter again required xia. The Court of Imperial Sacrifices proposed: The two rites di and xia are both great sacrifices. Xia is the combined feeding in the ancestral temple; di means carefully ordering honored and lowly. They extend the former lord's kindness downward and complete the filial piety of all heirs in serving kin. They differ from regular offerings and are performed at set times. Yet sacrifice should not be frequent, for if frequent it becomes profane; nor should it be sparse, for if sparse it becomes negligent. Therefore kings model themselves on the Way of Heaven and regulate the sacrificial canons. Zheng and chang correspond to the seasons; di and xia are like intercalary months. In five years there are two intercalary months, and the Way of Heaven is greatly complete; the ancestral temple models itself on this and performs two great sacrifices. Respectfully according to the Book of Rites, Royal Regulations, the Zhou Offices, Minister of Religion, Zheng Xuan's explanations, and Gao Tang's deliberations, all say: "When the lord of a state succeeds to the throne, after the three-year mourning is completed, he performs xia at the Grand Ancestor. The next year he performs di in the various temples. From then on, in five years there are two great sacrifices, one xia and one di." The Han and Wei precedents and the Veritable Records of Zhenguan all used this rite. Again according to the ritual apocrypha and the annotations to the Lu rites for di and xia, xia is once in three years and di once in five years; this is what is meant by two great sacrifices in five years. Again according to the Baihu Tong, Comprehensive Meanings of the Five Classics, Xu Shen's Different Meanings, He Xiu's Spring and Autumn Annals, and He Xun's Sacrificial Deliberations, all say that di is once in three years. Why? Because in three years one intercalary month occurs and the Way of Heaven is slightly complete; in five years two intercalary months occur and the Way of Heaven is greatly complete. Thus for two great sacrifices in five years, counting their numbers together, one xia and one di alternate and follow one another. Now the Great Temple's di and xia each count their own years, running on two separate tracks and not being counted together. Sometimes they are combined in consecutive years; sometimes they are ordered twice in the same year; sometimes after one di there are two xia; sometimes within five years there are suddenly three great sacrifices. The term for modeling Heaven and imitating intercalary months already departs from its measure, and the system of two great sacrifices in five years is also numerically different. Seeking this in the ritual texts, it is rather mistaken. Some explain: "The two rites di and xia are not the same in size; the sacrificial names differ, and the year counts diverge. Xia uses three cycles, reaching the small and combining; di uses five as its limit, reaching ten and completing a cycle. With such irregularity, it is difficult to count them together." Privately, we think that the theory of three xia and five di originally comes from the ritual apocrypha, and the number of two great sacrifices in five years is in the same passage. Connecting the two texts, they do not contradict one another. It is probably because xia placed after di is two and a half cycles later; stated by the whole number, it is called three years, just as an intercalary month once in three years uses only thirty-two months. Their different names as di and xia each follow the four seasons: autumn and winter are xia, spring and summer are di. Though the sacrificial names differ, as great sacrifices they are the same, just as yue, ci, zheng, and chang are one in substance. Zheng Xuan says xia is great and di is small; some commentaries say xia is small and di is great. In the display of vessels there may be additions and reductions, but in the meaning of counting them together there is originally no difference. The method of imitating intercalary months has probably been transmitted for a long time. Only Chen Shu of Jin had the proposal of one great sacrifice every three years, from the fifth year to the eighth and then the eleventh and fourteenth. Looking into the text he cited, it also uses imitation of intercalary months as its argument. But if in six years there are two great sacrifices, how can that be called imitating intercalary months? And where would one di every five years be applied? Such contradictory theories are hard to rely on. Since the measure for modeling Heaven has a definite direction, and the principle of examining antiquity is this clear, it is evident that the two sacrifices di and xia should be counted together. We now request that from the fourth month of the jimao year, the twenty-seventh year of Kaiyuan, there be di; in the tenth month of the xinsi year there be xia; in the fourth month of the jiashen year there again be di; in the tenth month of the bingxu year there again be xia; in the fourth month of the jichou year there again be di; and in the tenth month of the xinmao year there again be xia. From this point, two great sacrifices in five years will complete a cycle and begin again. Moreover, the theories of di and xia do not come from only one school. Since the text of two great sacrifices in five years is transmitted from one to another, the principle of modeling Heaven and imitating intercalary months is in general also the same. But in placing xia after di, whether nearer or farther, there are two methods for the measure of fullness and contraction: Zheng Xuan and Gao Tang's school put three first and two later; Xu Miao's proposal puts two first and three later. Respectfully according to Zheng's annotations, the method of putting three first relies on the texts of three xia and five di and preserves the positions of three years and five years. It considers that if there has already been di in a jia year, then in the ding year there should be xia, in the ji year again di, in the ren year again xia, in the jia year again di, and in the ding year again xia, completing a cycle and beginning again in this succession. From xia to di is eighteen months and near; from di to xia is thirty-two months and distant. This division is uneven and crude in calculation. Even if one attacks heterodoxy by placing xia in autumn, thirty-nine months would come before and twenty-one months after; although slightly better, the interval is still biased. Privately relying on the original text, all say it imitates intercalary months; the distance between two intercalary months is evenly divided. Why should the sequence of the two great sacrifices be unequal? Moreover, the phrase three years originally states a whole number; two and a half cycles in fact accords with three years. Placing xia at this point does not violate the text. Why must one be stuck on an interval of three first months? This is probably the one mistake among a thousand reflections, the blind spot of broad scholars. Xu's proposal differs from this; it is carefully examined and fully considered, and is the most reliable. It considers that two di are separated by sixty months; divide the middle at thirty and place one xia there. If there is summer di in a jia year and winter xia in a bing year, it has the method of imitating intercalary months and is not biased by the smallest measure. The text of one xia in three years has no violation, and the system of two great sacrifices in five years has equal spacing. Compared with the various scholars, its meaning is truly long-lasting. We now request that it be relied upon to fix the two great sacrifices, projecting the sacrificial months in advance so that the cycle completes and begins again.

禮部員外郎崔宗之駁下太常，令更詳議，令集賢學士陸善經等更加詳核，善經亦以其議為允。於是太常卿韋縚奏曰：「禮有禘祫，俱稱殷祭，二法更用，鱗次相承。或云五歲再殷，一禘一祫。或云三年一祫，五年一禘。法天象閏，大趣皆同。皆以太廟禘祫，計年有差，考于經傳，微有所乖。頃在四月，已行禘享，今指孟冬，又申祫儀，合食禮頻，恐違先典。伏以陛下能事畢舉，舊物咸甄，宗祏祗慎之時，經訓申明之日。臣等忝在持禮，職司討論，輒據舊文，定其倫序。請以今年夏禘，便為殷祭之源，自此之後，禘、祫相代，五年再殷，周而復始。其今年冬祫，准禮合停，望令所司但行時享，即嚴禋不黷，庶合舊儀。」制從之。

Cui Zongzhi, Vice Director of the Ministry of Rites, rejected the proposal and sent it down to the Court of Imperial Sacrifices, ordering further detailed deliberation; he also ordered Lu Shanjing and the other scholars of the Jixian Academy to examine it still more carefully, and Shanjing also considered the proposal acceptable. Director Wei Can then memorialized: "Ritual provides di and xia, both called substantive sacrifices; the two rites alternate in succession like scales on a fish. Some say that in five years there are two substantive sacrifices—one di and one xia. Others say xia every three years and di every five. Both follow heaven's pattern and the intercalary month; the underlying principle is the same. All concern di and xia at the Grand Temple, but the year-count differs; compared with the classics and commentaries, there is a slight discrepancy. Di was just performed in the fourth month; now, with mid-winter approaching, xia rites are proposed again—joint offerings would come too often and may violate ancient precedent. We submit that Your Majesty has completed the mourning observances, restored what was lost, and now, when the ancestral tablets are tended and the classics clarified— we who hold ritual office are charged with deliberation and presume to set the order according to old texts. Let this year's summer di be the starting point for substantive sacrifices; thereafter di and xia should alternate, two substantive sacrifices every five years, and the cycle begin anew. This year's winter xia should be omitted per ritual; we ask that the offices perform only the seasonal offerings—strict sacrifice without excess—and thus match former practice." The emperor approved.

舊儀，天寶八年閏六月六日敕文：「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。自今已後，每禘祫並于太清宮聖祖前設位序正，上以明陟配之禮，欽若玄象，下以盡虔祭之誠，無違至道。比來每緣禘祫，時享則停，事雖適於從宜，禮或虧於必備。已後每緣禘祫，其常享以素饌，三焚香以代三獻。」建中二年九月四日，太常博士陳京上疏言：今年十月，祫享太廟，併合饗遷廟獻祖、懿祖二神主。《春秋》之義，毀廟之主，陳于太祖，未毀廟之主，皆升合食于太祖。太祖之位，在西而東向，其下子孫，昭穆相對，南北為別，初無毀廟遷主不享之文。徵是禮也，自于周室，而國朝祀典，當與周異。且周以後稷配天，為始封之祖，而下乃立廟。廟毀主遷，皆在太祖之後。禘祫之時，無先于太廟太祖者。正太祖東向之位，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，則于太廟正太祖之位以申其尊，別廟祭高皇、太皇、征西等四府君以敘其親。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；則太祖于太廟遂居東向，以全其尊。伏以德明、興聖二皇帝，曩立廟，至禘祫之時，常用饗禮，今則別廟之制，使就興聖廟藏祔為宜。

According to the old observance, an edict of the sixth day of the intercalary sixth month in the eighth year of Tianbao said: "The rites of di and xia preserve sequence and position; changes between plainness and refinement follow the times. The state traces its root to the immortal ancestor and inherited its work from the Sage Ancestor. Repeated brightness and accumulated flourishing have already bestowed endless blessings. In sharing offerings and raising spirits, we think to enlarge an unchanging canon. From now on, at every di and xia, set up the proper sequence of places before the Sage Ancestor in Taiqing Palace. Above, this will make clear the rite of ascending and pairing, reverently following the dark images; below, it will exhaust the sincerity of reverent sacrifice, not departing from the Perfect Way. Recently, whenever there has been di or xia, the seasonal offering has been suspended. Though this is suited to expedience, in ritual it may lack full provision. Hereafter, whenever there is di or xia, the regular offering shall use vegetarian dishes, and three burnings of incense shall replace the three libations." On the fourth day of the ninth month of the second year of Jianzhong, Chen Jing, Erudite of the Court of Imperial Sacrifices, submitted a memorial saying: This year in the tenth month, at the xia offering in the Great Temple, the two spirit tablets of Xianzu and Yizu from the removed temples should both be feasted. In the meaning of the Spring and Autumn Annals, tablets from destroyed temples are displayed at the Grand Ancestor, and tablets from temples not yet destroyed are all raised to share food at the Grand Ancestor. The Grand Ancestor's place is in the west facing east; below him the descendants face one another by zhao and mu, separated north and south. Originally there is no text saying that tablets moved from destroyed temples do not receive offerings. This rite is attested from the Zhou house, but the sacrificial canons of our dynasty should differ from Zhou. Zhou paired Houji with Heaven as the first-enfeoffed ancestor, and only below him established temples. Temples destroyed and tablets moved were all after the Grand Ancestor. At the time of di and xia, there was none before the Great Temple's Grand Ancestor. This made correct the Grand Ancestor's east-facing position and fully preserved his honor without doubt. Yet for this year's tenth-month xia offering in the Great Temple, I respectfully request comparison with the old systems of Wei and Jin: build a separate temple. Eastern Jin made a separate temple for the four prefectural lords such as Zhengxi; at the time of di and xia, in the Great Temple it rectified the Grand Ancestor's position to express his honor, while in the separate temple it sacrificed to Gao Huang, Tai Huang, Zhengxi, and the other four prefectural lords to order their kinship. Respectfully, if the state uses this meaning, then separate temples should be established for Xianzu and Yizu, and di and xia sacrifices offered to them, to give weight to their kinship. Then the Grand Ancestor in the Great Temple will occupy the east-facing position, fully preserving his honor. Respectfully, Emperors Deming and Xingsheng formerly had temples established, and at the time of di and xia they always used offering rites. Now, for the system of a separate temple, it would be proper to store and attach the tablets at Xingsheng Temple.

敕下尚書省百僚集議。禮儀使太子少師顏真卿議曰：「議者或云獻祖、懿祖親遠廟遷，不當祫享，宜永閟西夾室。又議者云二祖宜同祫享，于太祖並昭穆，而空太祖東向之位。又議者云，二祖若同袷享，即太祖之位永不得正，宜奉遷二祖神主祔藏于德明皇帝廟。臣伏以三議俱未為允。且禮經殘缺，既無明據，儒者能方義類，斟酌其中，則可舉而行之，蓋協於正也。伏惟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，率循孝悌也。請依晉蔡謨等議，至十月祫享之日奉獻祖神主居東向之位，自懿祖、太祖洎諸祖宗，遵左昭右穆之列。此有彰國家重本尚順之明義，足為萬代不易之令典也。又議者請奉二祖神主于德明皇帝廟，行祫祭之禮。夫祫，合也。故《公羊傳》云：『大事者何？祫也。』若祫祭不陳於太廟而享於德明廟，是乃分食也，豈謂合食乎？名實相乖，深失禮意，固不可行也。」

An edict ordered the Ministry of State to assemble all officials for deliberation. Rites Commissioner and Junior Tutor Yan Zhenqing proposed: "Some say that Xianzu and Yizu, being distant in kin and having had their temples moved, should not receive xia offerings and should be permanently shut in the west side chambers. Others say the two ancestors should share xia with the Grand Ancestor in zhao-mu order, leaving the Grand Ancestor's east-facing seat vacant. Others say that if the two ancestors share xia, the Grand Ancestor's seat could never be corrected; the two ancestors' tablets should be moved to the temple of the Virtuous and Illustrious Emperor. I submit that all three proposals are unacceptable. The ritual classics are damaged and lack clear authority; scholars who can compare categories and weigh the matter may act—this broadly accords with what is correct. The Grand Ancestor, Emperor Jing, for merit at first enfeoffment when the mandate was received, occupies the temple that is never moved for a hundred generations and is paired with Heaven in lofty sacrifice—this is the highest honor. At great di and xia he temporarily takes a zhao-mu place, humbling himself to extend filial piety and serve the ancestors—by the rite of kin order, broadening honor to forebears. This is truly the Grand Ancestor's intent, and thereby transforms the realm and leads all in filial piety. Please follow Jin Cai Mo's proposal: on the day of the tenth month's xia offering, place Xianzu's tablet in the east-facing position; from Yizu and the Grand Ancestor down through all ancestors, follow the left-zhao right-mu array. This clearly expresses the state's weight on the root and honoring of obedience—sufficient as an unchanging statute for ten thousand generations. Others propose placing the two ancestors' tablets in the Virtuous and Illustrious Emperor's temple to perform xia. Xia denotes union. Therefore the Gongyang Commentary says: "What is a great affair? It is xia." If xia is not performed in the Grand Temple but in the Virtuous and Illustrious temple, that is divided offering—how can it be called joint offering? Name and substance contradict each other, deeply losing ritual meaning, so it certainly cannot be carried out." The memorial ended.

十一月二十八日，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，為尊于太祖故也。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，不在昭穆合食之列。國家誕受天命，累聖重光。景皇帝始封唐公，實為太祖。中間世數既近，於三昭三穆之內，故皇家太廟，惟有六室。其弘農府君、宣、光二祖，尊于太祖，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？伏乙太祖上配天地，百代不遷，而居昭穆，獻、懿二祖，親盡廟遷，而居東向，徵諸故實，實所未安。請下百僚僉議。」敕旨依。

On the twenty-eighth of the eleventh month, Director Pei Yu memorialized: "Di and xia—in Yin and Zhou, because moved temples all came after the Grand Ancestor, joint offerings could be ordered without confusion of rank. When Han Gaozu received the mandate there was no founding enfeoffment ancestor; the High Emperor was made Grand Ancestor. The Supreme Emperor, Gaozu's father, had a temple for sacrifice but was not in the zhao-mu joint-offering order, being honored above the Grand Ancestor. Cao Cao founded the enterprise; Emperor Wen received the mandate and likewise took Emperor Wu as Grand Ancestor. The High Emperor, Supreme Emperor, Recluse Lord, and others were all subordinate in honor and outside the zhao-mu joint-offering order. Sima Yi founded the enterprise; Emperor Wu received the mandate and likewise took Emperor Xuan as Grand Ancestor. The Western Campaign, Yingchuan, and other four mansion lords were likewise subordinate in honor and outside the zhao-mu joint-offering order. Our state received the Mandate of Heaven; successive sage rulers doubled its glory. Emperor Jing was first enfeoffed as Duke of Tang and was truly the Grand Ancestor. The intervening generations were few; within the three zhao and three mu, the imperial Grand Temple therefore had only six chambers. The Lord of Hongnong Mansion and the two ancestors Xuan and Guang, honored above the Grand Ancestor—when kin was exhausted their temples were moved and they were not counted in zhao-mu. This is recorded in the ritual annals and may be followed. In Kaiyuan nine chambers were added; Offerings and Eminence were both in zhao-mu, so Grand Ancestor Emperor Jing could not take the east-facing honor. Now the two ancestors have been moved out and the nine chambers are in order—how can the Grand Ancestor's seat again fail to be corrected? We submit that the Grand Ancestor, paired with Heaven and Earth and never moved for a hundred generations, yet occupies zhao-mu, while Offerings and Eminence, kin exhausted and temples moved, occupy the east-facing—examining precedent, this is truly improper. We ask that all officials deliberate jointly." The emperor approved.

八年正月二十三日，太子左庶子李嶸等七人議曰：《王制》：「天子七廟，三昭三穆，與太祖而七。」周制也。七者，太祖及文王、武王之祧，與親廟四也。太祖，後稷也。殷則六廟，契及湯與二昭二穆。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，其已前神主，據已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也。雖百代，禘祫及之。」伏以獻、懿二祖，太祖以前親盡之主也。擬三代以降之制，則禘祫不及矣。代祖神主，則太祖已下毀廟之主，則《公羊傳》所謂「已毀廟之主，陳于太祖」者是也。謹按漢永光四年詔，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，太上廟主宜瘞於園，孝惠主遷于太祖廟。奏可。太上，同太祖已前之主，瘞於園，禘祫不及故也，則今獻、懿二祖之比也。孝惠遷于太祖廟，明太祖已下子孫，同禘祫所及，則今代祖元皇帝神主之比也。自魏、晉及宋、齊、陳、隋相承，始受命之君皆立廟，虛太祖之位。自太祖之後至七代君，則太祖東向位，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，世數猶近故也。至東晉明帝崩，以征西等三祖遷入西除，名之曰祧，以准遠廟。至康帝崩，穆帝立，於是京兆遷入西除，同謂之祧，如前之禮，並禘祫所不及。國朝始饗四廟，宣、光並太祖、世祖神主祔於廟。貞觀九年，將祔高祖于太廟，朱子奢請准禮立七廟，其三昭三穆，各置神主。太祖，依晉宋以來故事，虛其位，待遞遷方處之東向位。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，始遷宣皇帝于西夾室。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。祝文于三祖不稱臣，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。至寶應二年，祔玄宗、肅宗於廟，遷獻、懿二祖於西夾室，始以太祖當東向位，以獻、懿二祖為是太祖以前親盡神主，准禮禘祫不及，凡十八年。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，請准東晉蔡謨等議為定。遂以獻祖當東向，以懿祖于昭位南向，以太祖于穆位北向，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，豈可為准？嶸伏以嘗、禘、郊、社，尊無二上，瘞毀遷藏，禮有義斷。以獻、懿為親盡之主，太祖已當東向之尊，一朝改移，實非典故。謂宜復先朝故事，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，無禱乃止。」太祖既昭配天地，位當東向之尊。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。吏部郎中柳冕等十二人議曰：天子受命之君，諸侯始封之祖，皆為太祖。故雖天子，必有尊也，是以尊太祖焉；故雖諸侯，必有先也，亦以尊太祖焉。故太祖已下，親盡而毀。洎秦滅學，漢不及禮，不列昭穆，不建迭毀。晉失之，宋因之。於是有違五廟之制，於是有虛太祖之位。夫不列昭穆，非所以示人有序也；不建迭毀，非所以示人有殺也；違五廟之制，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。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。又按《周禮》有先公之祧，有先王之祧。先公之遷主，藏乎後稷之廟，其周未受命之祧乎？先王之遷主，藏乎文王之廟，其周已受命之祧乎？故有二祧，所以異廟也。今獻祖已下之祧，猶先公也；太祖已下之祧，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，因于周也；魏之禮，因於漢也；隋之禮，因于魏也。皆立三廟，有二祧。又立私廟四於南陽，亦後漢制也。以為人之子，事大宗降其私親，故私廟所以奉本宗也。太廟所以尊正統也。雖古今異時，文質異禮，而右禮之情，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。工部郎中張薦等議曰：昔殷、周以稷、珣始封，為不遷之祖，其毀廟之主，皆稷、珣之後，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。據此則鯀之親盡，其主已遷。左氏既稱『禹不先鯀』，足明遷廟之主，中屬尊于始封祖者，亦在合食之位矣。又據晉、宋、齊、梁、北齊、周、隋史，其太祖已下，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，禘袷並虛東向。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，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，及請別置築室，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，而虛東向。司勳員外郎裴樞議曰：禮之必立宗子者，蓋為收其族人，東向之主，亦猶是也。若祔於遠廟，無乃中有一間，等上不倫。西位常虛，則太祖永厭于昭穆；異廟別祭，則祫饗何主乎合食？永閟比于姜嫄，則推祥禖而無事。《禮》云：「親親故尊祖，尊祖故敬宗，敬宗故收族，所以宗廟嚴，社稷重。」由是言也，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于園，晉徵士虞喜請瘞於廟兩階之間。喜又引左氏說，古者先王日祭于祖考，月祀于曾高，時享及二祧，歲祫及壇墠，終禘及郊宗石室。是謂郊宗之上，復有石室之祖，斯最近矣。但當時議所居石室，未有准的。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，采漢、晉之舊章，仍禘袷之一祭，修古禮之殘缺，為國朝之典故，庶乎《春秋》變禮之正，動也中者焉。考功員外郎陳京議曰：京前為太常博士，已于建中二年九月四日，奏議祫饗獻、懿二祖所安之位，請下百僚博采所疑。其時禮儀使顏真卿因是上狀，與京議異，京議未行。伏見去年十一月二十八日詔下太常卿裴郁所奏，大抵與京議相會。伏以興聖皇帝，同獻祖之曾祖，懿祖之高祖。夫以曾孫祔列于曾、高之廟，豈禮之不可哉？實人情之大順也。京兆少尹韋武議曰：凡三年一祫，五年一禘。祫則群廟大合，禘則各序其祧。謂主遷彌遠，祧室既修，當袷之歲，當以獻祖居於東向，而懿祖序其昭穆，以極所親。若行禘禮，則太祖復筵于西，以眾主列其左右。是則于太祖不為降屈，于獻祖無所厭卑。考禮酌情，謂當行此為勝。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，權居東向，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，儒者安知非夏後廟數未足之時，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。惟東晉蔡謨憑左氏「不先食」以為說，欲令征西東向。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，取征西東向之一句為萬代法，此共不可甚也。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。則別築一室，義差可安。且興聖之于獻祖，乃曾祖也，昭穆有序，饗祀以時。伏請奉獻、懿二祖遷於德明、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，是亦分食，奚疑于二祖乎？

On the twenty-third day of the first month of the eighth year, seven men including Li Rong, Junior Preceptor of the Heir Apparent's Left, deliberated: The Royal Regulations says: "The Son of Heaven has seven temples: three zhao and three mu, together with the Grand Ancestor making seven." This is the Zhou system. The seven are the Grand Ancestor, the removed temples of King Wen and King Wu, and four kin temples. The Grand Ancestor is Houji. Yin had six temples: Xie and Tang with two zhao and two mu. Xia had five temples, with no Grand Ancestor: Yu with two zhao and two mu only. Sun Qin, Erudite of Jin, deliberated: "The Grand Ancestor of a king who receives the mandate and the first-enfeoffed lord of a feudal state: for spirit tablets before them, according to the above numbers, when they pass five generations, their temples are destroyed, and di and xia no longer reach them. Those reached by di and xia are the successively destroyed tablets after the mandate-receiving Grand Ancestor that are raised and stored in the two removed temples. Even after a hundred generations, di and xia reach them." Respectfully, Xianzu and Yizu are tablets before the Grand Ancestor whose kinship is exhausted. If measured by the systems from the Three Dynasties downward, di and xia do not reach them. As for tablets of Daizu, they are destroyed-temple tablets from below the Grand Ancestor, which is what the Gongyang Tradition calls "tablets of already destroyed temples displayed at the Grand Ancestor." Respectfully according to the Han edict of the fourth year of Yongguang, when debating abolition of commandery and kingdom temples and ancestors whose kinship was exhausted, Chancellor Wei Xuancheng deliberated that the temples of Taishang and Xiaohui were both exhausted in kinship and should be destroyed; Taishang's temple tablet should be buried in the park, and Xiaohui's tablet moved to the Grand Ancestor's temple. The memorial was approved. Taishang is the same as tablets before the Grand Ancestor; he was buried in the park because di and xia did not reach him, and so is comparable to our Xianzu and Yizu. Xiaohui was moved to the Grand Ancestor's temple, making clear that descendants below the Grand Ancestor were reached by the same di and xia; this is comparable to the spirit tablet of Daizu, Emperor Yuan. From Wei, Jin, and Song, Qi, Chen, and Sui in succession, rulers who first received the mandate all established temples and left the Grand Ancestor's position empty. From after the Grand Ancestor down to rulers of seven generations, the Grand Ancestor's east-facing position then completed the seven temples. As for tablets before the Grand Ancestor, Emperor Ming of Wei moved the recluse's tablet and placed it in the park settlement, sending magistrates and assistants to present offerings by season, because the generations were still near. When Emperor Ming of Eastern Jin died, the three ancestors such as Zhengxi were moved into the western side building, named removed temples, in order to match remote temples. When Emperor Kang died and Emperor Mu ascended, Jingzhao was then moved into the western side building and likewise called a removed temple, following the previous rite; in both cases di and xia did not reach them. In our dynasty's beginning, offerings were made to four temples, with Xuan and Guang together with the spirit tablets of Taizu and Shizu attached in the temple. In the ninth year of Zhenguan, when Gaozu was about to be attached in the Great Temple, Zhu Zishe requested that, according to ritual, seven temples be established, each of the three zhao and three mu having its tablet. The Grand Ancestor, according to precedents since Jin and Song, would have his position left empty until successive movement placed him in the east-facing position. Thereupon Hongnong Fujun and Gaozu were first attached as six chambers, with the Grand Ancestor's position left empty while di and xia were performed. In the twenty-third year, when Taizong was attached in the temple, Hongnong Fujun was then stored in the western side chamber. In the first year of Wenming, when Gaozong was attached in the temple, Emperor Xuan was first moved into the western side chamber. In the tenth year of Kaiyuan, Xuanzong specially established nine temples; thereupon Emperor Xuan was posthumously honored as Xianzu and again arrayed in a principal chamber, while Emperor Guang was made Yizu, filling out nine chambers. Di and xia still left the Grand Ancestor's position empty. In prayer texts, toward the three ancestors the word "servant" was not used, making clear that this only completed the temple count. After the recovery in the second year of Zhide, new spirit tablets were made for the nine temples, and Hongnong Fujun's tablet was not made, making clear that di and xia did not reach him. In the second year of Baoying, when Xuanzong and Suzong were attached in the temple, Xianzu and Yizu were moved to the western side chamber; only then did Grand Ancestor Emperor Jing occupy the east-facing honor, and Emperor Yuan and those below followed the ranks of left zhao and right mu. Now if Xianzu and Yizu are again moved into the ranks of zhao and mu, then the order of those honored and lowly is confused. It is not the way to show people distinction. If the Grand Ancestor's position is left empty, it is not the way to show people honor. This is why the rite has been abandoned. According to the ritual: "If the father was a gentleman and the son is Son of Heaven, he sacrifices with the Son of Heaven's rites and buries with the gentleman's rites." Now Xianzu is removed, and Yizu is also removed. Before Tang received the mandate, they still had the rites of gentlemen. Therefore Gaozu and Taizong sacrificed to them with the rites of the Son of Heaven, but did not dare replace the Grand Ancestor's position with them. If now it is replaced, would this not disturb the former kings' order? In the past, when Zhou possessed All Under Heaven, it posthumously honored Taiwang and Wangji with the rites of the Son of Heaven; when they were sacrificed to, once kinship was exhausted, their temples were destroyed. When Han possessed All Under Heaven, it honored Taishang Huang with the rites of the Son of Heaven; when he was sacrificed to, once kinship was exhausted, his temple was destroyed. When Tang possessed All Under Heaven, it posthumously honored Xianzu and Yizu with the rites of the Son of Heaven; when they were sacrificed to, once kinship was exhausted, their temples were destroyed. Thus it is clear that they cannot replace the Grand Ancestor's position. Again according to the Zhou Rites, there are removed temples for former dukes and removed temples for former kings. The moved tablets of former dukes are stored in Houji's temple; are these not the removed temples from before Zhou received the mandate? The moved tablets of former kings are stored in King Wen's temple; are these not the removed temples from after Zhou received the mandate? Therefore there are two removed temples, in order to distinguish temples. Now the removed temples of Xianzu and those below are like former dukes; the removed temples of the Grand Ancestor and those below are like former kings. We request that a separate temple be built to house the two ancestors; this will carry out the Zhou rite and restore the ancient way. Thus Han ritual followed Zhou; Wei ritual followed Han; Sui ritual followed Wei. All established three temples and had two removed temples. They also established four private temples at Nanyang, which was also a Later Han system. Because a person's son, in serving the great line, lowers his private kin, private temples serve the root lineage, while the Great Temple honors the direct line. Although ancient and recent times differ, and refinement and plainness have different rites, those who honor ritual's feeling and ask about ritual's root all understand its changes and weigh them in practice. Therefore, when above one reaches its highest honor, the Grand Ancestor belongs to the honored above; when below one exhausts its reductions, removed tablets exhaust kinship below; when placed in the middle, the king presides over removed temples in the middle. Zhang Jian, Bureau Director of Works, and others deliberated: In the past Yin and Zhou took Ji and Xun, the first-enfeoffed ancestors, as unmoving ancestors; the destroyed-temple tablets were all after Ji and Xun, so zhao and mu were sacrificed together and honored and lowly were not confused. As for the Xia sovereigns, Yu was first enfeoffed and so became the unmoving ancestor. Therefore Xia had five temples, Yu with two zhao and two mu only. According to this, when Gun's kinship was exhausted, his tablet had already been moved. Since Zuo says "Yu did not eat before Gun," this sufficiently shows that among moved temple tablets, those whose relationship places them above the first-enfeoffed ancestor were also in the position of sharing food. Again according to the histories of Jin, Song, Qi, Liang, Northern Qi, Zhou, and Sui, below the Grand Ancestor all alike participated in di and xia, and there was never a limit cutting off moved and destroyed tablets. Respectfully, in the eight southern and northern dynasties there were surely great scholars and major Confucians; ancestral temple affairs are great matters, and deliberations must have been refined and broad. Testing it in the histories, their rites all agree. Again examining Wei, Jin, Song, Qi, Liang, Northern Qi, Zhou, and Sui precedents, and what the Zhenguan, Xianqing, and Kaiyuan rites set out, di and xia all left the east-facing position empty. Since this had been practiced for a long time, it was truly what people's feelings accepted. Moreover the Grand Ancestor occupies the first chamber of the clear temple; though his spirit tablet is not moved for a hundred generations, he forever enjoys zheng and chang and above is paired with Heaven and Earth, so nothing in suburban or temple sacrifices is not correct. If at the time of di and xia he temporarily occupies the ranks of zhao and mu, yielding himself and extending filial piety in order to serve ancestors and deceased fathers, is this not the way of Lord Yu's deep reverence for Gun? It is also the meaning by which the Grand Ancestors of Wei, Jin, Zhou, and Sui did not dare use lowliness to press down honor. Some deliberators wish to move the two ancestors to Xingsheng Temple, and request that a separate chamber be built and offerings made there in di and xia years. But xia means combining; this would be separate feeding, especially contrary to ritual meaning. Others wish to store them in the western side chamber and never have sacrifice reach them, which is no different from Han burying them in the park and is still more unacceptable. We dare cite correct classics, examine and discuss old histories, and request that Xianzu and Yizu together with the Grand Ancestor all follow the zhao-mu positions while the east-facing position is left empty. Pei Shu, Bureau Director of Merit Titles, deliberated: Ritual's requirement to establish a lineage son is probably for gathering the clan members; the east-facing tablet is like this. If attached in a remote temple, is there not an interval in between, making the ranks above improper? If the western position is always empty, the Grand Ancestor is forever suppressed among zhao and mu; if there are different temples and separate sacrifices, what does the combined offering in xia combine? If they are forever closed away like Jiang Yuan, then one pushes the auspicious matchmaker and has no affair. The ritual says: "One loves kin and therefore honors ancestors; honoring ancestors, one reveres the lineage; revering the lineage, one gathers the clan. This is how the ancestral temple is solemn and the altars of soil and grain are weighty." Speaking from this, if above the Grand Ancestor there are again posthumously honored ancestors, does that not violate the meanings of loving kin and honoring ancestors? If a separate sacrificial temple is lightly placed outside the Great Temple, is the ancestral temple not made unsolemn and are the altars of soil and grain not made unweighty? Moreover Chancellor Wei Xuancheng of Han requested burial in the park, and recluse Yu Xi of Jin requested burial between the two steps of the temple. Xi also cited Zuo's explanation: ancient former kings daily sacrificed to ancestors and deceased fathers, monthly sacrificed to great-grandfathers and great-great-grandfathers, seasonally offered to the two removed temples, yearly xia reached the altar and open ground, and the final di reached the suburban altar, lineage temple, and stone chamber. This is saying that above the suburban altar and lineage temple there was again an ancestor of the stone chamber; this is nearest to the matter. But in the deliberation at the time, there was no fixed standard for where the stone chamber should be. Xi requested it be in the side chamber, but in my foolish view, a stone chamber may be relied on, while the way to place it there is not settled. Why? Side chambers mean places for destroyed tablets below the Grand Ancestor, not places to rest stored tablets above the Grand Ancestor. There has never been lowly placed in the correct position while honored is placed at the side. Examining principle and heart, I fear this is not truly fitting. Now if a stone chamber is built in the park or tomb, and the spirit tablets are moved there for permanent rest, taking the old statutes of Han and Jin while still maintaining one di and xia sacrifice, repairing what ancient ritual has left incomplete and making it a canon of our dynasty, it may be close to the correctness of altered ritual in the Spring and Autumn Annals, action striking the center. Chen Jing, Bureau Director of Merit Evaluation, deliberated: When I previously served as Erudite of the Court of Imperial Sacrifices, on the fourth day of the ninth month of the second year of Jianzhong I already memorialized a deliberation on the proper positions for offering xia to Xianzu and Yizu, requesting that it be sent down to all officials to gather broadly what was doubtful. At that time the Ritual Commissioner Yan Zhenqing submitted a statement differing from my deliberation, and my proposal was not carried out. I respectfully saw the edict issued last year on the twenty-eighth day of the eleventh month in response to the memorial of Pei Yu, Director of the Court of Imperial Sacrifices; in general it agrees with my deliberation. Respectfully, Emperor Xingsheng is the great-grandfather of Xianzu and the great-great-grandfather of Yizu. How could it be contrary to ritual for great-grandsons to be attached and arrayed in the temples of great-grandfather and great-great-grandfather? It is truly the great accordance of human feeling. Wei Wu, Junior Intendant of Jingzhao, deliberated: In general, every three years there is xia and every five years there is di. In xia, the various temples are greatly combined; in di, each orders its removed ancestors. This means that when tablets have moved farther away and removed chambers have been repaired, in a xia year Xianzu should occupy the east-facing position and Yizu should be ordered in his zhao-mu place, to exhaust what is nearest. If the di rite is performed, then the Grand Ancestor should again be seated in the west and the various tablets arrayed to his left and right. Thus the Grand Ancestor is not lowered or bent, and Xianzu has no pressure of lowness. Examining ritual and weighing feeling, I consider carrying this out superior. Zhong Ziling, commandant of Tongguan County, deliberated: Now Confucians cite the saying "Even if the son is equal to a sage, he does not eat before his father," wishing to have the already removed Xianzu provisionally occupy the east-facing position while the Grand Ancestor who is paired with Heaven bends to occupy zhao and mu. This is extremely uncomprehending. In general Zuo's phrase "does not eat before" was only to correct Duke Wen's inverted sacrifice. How do Confucians know that it was not speaking of a time when the Xia temple count was not yet sufficient, saying that Yu did not go before Gun? Moreover Han di and xia are not enough to verify. Since Wei and Jin, Grand Ancestors have all been near, so above the Grand Ancestor there were all moved tablets. What successive dynasties doubted, some forever closed away by citing the poem Bi Gong, some buried in the park because of the meaning of yu tablets, some built halls because of remote temples as removed temples, and some said the Grand Ancestor was actually low and left the position empty. Only Cai Mo of Eastern Jin relied on Zuo's "does not eat before" as his explanation and wished to have Zhengxi face east. Among these several views, this is the least settled. Moreover Cai Mo's proposal was not what Jin carried out. Earlier, the responsible offices did not base themselves on Mo's statement about rebuilding; they took only the one phrase that Zhengxi should face east as law for ten thousand generations. This is completely unacceptable. Your servant has also considered it: if tablets are forever closed away or buried in the park, then the hearts of ministers and sons are unsettled; if the correct position is provisionally left empty, then the Grand Ancestor's honor is never fixed. Thus separately building one chamber is slightly more settled in meaning. Moreover Xingsheng is Xianzu's great-grandfather; zhao and mu have their order, and offerings and sacrifices are made by season. I respectfully request that Xianzu and Yizu be moved to the temples of Deming and Xingsheng. This is the great accordance. Some say that xia means combining; now the two ancestors would have a separate temple, which is separate feeding, so how is it combining? Your servant considers that in years of di and xia, offerings are also presented in both the Deming and Xingsheng temples. This too is separate feeding; why doubt it for the two ancestors?

其月二十七日，吏部郎中柳冕上《禘祫義證》，凡一十四道，以備顧問，並議奏聞。至三月十二日，祠部奏郁等議狀。

On the twenty-seventh of that month, Liu Mian submitted "Evidence on Di and Xia," fourteen items in all, for consultation; all were deliberated and reported. By the twelfth of the third month, the Bureau of Sacrifices reported Yu and others' deliberation.

至十一年七月十二日，敕：「于頎等議狀，所請各殊，理在討論，用求精當。宜令尚書省會百僚與國子監儒官，切磋舊狀，定可否，仍委所司具事件聞奏。」其月二十六日，左司郎中陸淳奏曰：「臣尋七年百僚所議，雖有一十六狀，總其歸趣，三端而已。于頎等一十四狀，並云復太祖之位。張薦狀則云並列昭穆，而虛東饗之位。韋武狀同云當祫之歲，獻祖居於東向，行禘之禮，太祖復筵于西。謹按禮經及先儒之說，復太祖之位，位既正也，義在不疑。太祖之位既正，懿、獻二主，當有所歸。詳考十四狀，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，始于魏明之說，實非《禮經》之文。晉義熙九年，雖立此義，已後亦無行者。遷於園寢，是亂宗廟之儀，既無所憑，殊乖經意，不足徵也。惟有祔於興聖之廟，禘祫之歲乃一祭之，庶乎亡於禮者之禮，而得變之正也。」

On the twelfth day of the seventh month in the eleventh year, an edict said: "The deliberative submissions of Yu Qi and the others make different requests; in principle they require discussion, in order to seek what is refined, precise, and proper. Let the Department of State Affairs assemble all officials together with the Confucian officials of the Guozijian Directorate of Education, compare and polish the old submissions, determine what may or may not be done, and still entrust the responsible offices to set out the matter and its details fully and report." On the twenty-sixth day of that month, Lu Chun, Bureau Director of the Left, memorialized: "Your servant has examined the deliberations of all officials in the seventh year. Although there were sixteen submissions, in sum their tendencies have only three points and no more. Yu Hao and others' fourteen memorials all said to restore the Grand Ancestor's seat. Zhang Jian argued for zhao-mu placement with an empty east-facing seat. Wei Wu's memorial likewise said that in a xia year Xianzu should face east and perform di, while the Grand Ancestor should again take the western seat. According to the ritual classics and former scholars, restoring the Grand Ancestor's seat—once the seat is corrected, the meaning admits no doubt. Once the Grand Ancestor's seat is corrected, the tablets of Eminence and Offerings must have somewhere to go. Examining the fourteen memorials, their intent has four points: store in side chambers; place in a separate temple; move to the park tomb; or enshrine in Xingsheng. Storing in side chambers means no scheduled offerings—unlike the Zhou practice of the two remote temples; ritual cannot be done. A separate temple began with Wei Ming's proposal; it is not in the Ritual Classics. In the ninth year of Yixi under Jin, although this principle was established, afterward no one carried it out. Moving to the park tomb disrupts ancestral-temple observance, has no authority, and greatly departs from the classics—it cannot be cited. Only attaching them in the temple of Xingsheng and sacrificing to them once in the years of di and xia may be close to the ritual for what has been lost in ritual, and obtain the correctness of adaptation." The memorial ended.

十九年三月，給事中陳京奏：「禘是大合祖宗之祭，必尊太祖之位，以正昭穆。今年遇禘，伏恐須定向來所議之禮。」敕曰：「禘祫之禮，祭之大者，先有眾議，猶未精詳，宜令百僚會議以聞。」時左僕射姚南仲等獻議狀五十七封，詔付都省再集百僚議定聞奏。戶部尚書王紹等五十五人奏議：「請奉遷獻祖、懿祖神主祔德明、興聖廟，請別增兩室奉安神主。緣二十四日禘祭，修廟未成，請於德明、興聖廟垣內權設幕屋為二室，暫安神主。候增修廟室成，准禮遷祔神主入新廟。每至禘祫年，各於本室行饗禮。」從之。是月十五日，遷獻祖、懿祖神主權祔德明、興聖廟之幕殿。二十四日，饗太廟。自此景皇帝始居東向之尊，元皇帝已下依左昭右穆之列矣。二祖新廟成，敕曰：「奉遷獻祖、懿祖神主，正太祖景皇帝之位，虔告之禮，當任重臣。宜令檢校司空平章事杜佑攝太尉，告太清宮；門下侍郎平章事崔損攝太尉，告太廟。」又詔曰：「國之大事，式在明禋。王者孝饗，莫重於禘祭，所以尊祖而正昭穆也。朕承列聖之休德，荷上天之睠命，虔奉牲幣，二十五年。永惟宗廟之位，禘嘗之序，夙夜祗栗，不敢自專。是用延訪公卿，稽參古禮，博考群議，至於再三。敬以令辰，奉遷獻祖宣皇帝神主、懿祖光皇帝神主，祔於德明、興聖皇帝廟。太祖景皇帝正東向之位。宜令所司循禮，務極精嚴，祗肅祀典，載深感惕。咨爾中外，宜悉朕懷。」會昌六年十月，太常禮院奏：「禘祫祝文稱號，穆宗皇帝、宣懿皇后韋氏、敬宗皇帝、文宗皇帝、武宗皇帝，緣從前序親親，以穆宗皇帝室稱為皇兄，未合禮文。

In the third month of the nineteenth year, Supervising Secretary Chen Jing memorialized: "Di is the great joint sacrifice to ancestors; the Grand Ancestor's seat must be honored to correct zhao-mu. This year a di is due; we fear the rites must follow the deliberation to date." An edict said: "The rites of di and xia are great matters among sacrifices. There have already been many deliberations, but they are still not refined and detailed. Let all officials assemble and deliberate, then report." At that time Left Vice Director Yao Nanzhong and others submitted fifty-seven deliberative memorials, and an edict sent them to the Department of State Affairs to assemble all officials again, settle the matter by deliberation, and report. Minister of Revenue Wang Shao and fifty-five others memorialized: "We ask to move the tablets of Xianzu and Yizu to the Deming and Xingsheng temples and separately add two chambers for the tablets. Because di falls on the twenty-fourth and temple repair is unfinished, we ask to set up temporary curtain-houses as two chambers within the Deming and Xingsheng temple compounds and temporarily install the tablets. When the new chambers are finished, move the tablets into them per ritual. In each di and xia year, perform offerings in their respective chambers." The emperor approved. On the fifteenth of that month, the tablets of Xianzu and Yizu were moved and temporarily enshrined in the curtain-halls of the Deming and Xingsheng temples. On the twenty-fourth, offerings were made at the Grand Temple. From this point Emperor Jing took the east-facing honor; from Emperor Yuan downward they followed left-zhao right-mu. When the new temples for the two ancestors were completed, an edict said: "In respectfully moving the spirit tablets of Xianzu and Yizu and rectifying the position of Grand Ancestor Emperor Jing, the rite of reverent announcement should be entrusted to weighty ministers. Let Du You, acting minister of Works and chief minister, serve as acting grand commandant and announce it at Taiqing Palace; let Cui Sun, vice director of the Chancellery and chief minister, serve as acting grand commandant and announce it at the Great Temple." Another edict said: "The great affairs of the state lie in clear sacrifice. Among the filial offerings of kings, nothing is weightier than the di sacrifice, by which the ancestor is honored and zhao and mu are rectified. I inherit the excellent virtue of the arrayed sages and bear the attentive command of High Heaven, reverently presenting victims and silks for twenty-five years. Ever thinking on the positions in the ancestral temple and the sequence of di and chang, I have been reverent and fearful day and night and dared not decide it on my own. Therefore I extended inquiry to the dukes and ministers, examined and compared ancient rites, and broadly tested the various deliberations, reaching the matter again and again. On this fine day, I reverently move the spirit tablets of Xianzu, Emperor Xuan, and Yizu, Emperor Guang, attaching them in the temples of Emperors Deming and Xingsheng. Grand Ancestor Emperor Jing rectifies the east-facing position. Let the responsible offices follow ritual, strive for utmost refinement and solemnity, and reverently regulate the sacrificial canons; I am deeply moved and apprehensive. Ah, you inside and outside the court, you should all know my mind." In the tenth month of the sixth year of Huichang, the Ritual Office of the Court of Imperial Sacrifices memorialized: "In the titles used in di and xia prayer texts for Emperor Muzong, Empress Xuanyi of the Wei clan, Emperor Jingzong, Emperor Wenzong, and Emperor Wuzong, because the former sequence ordered near kin, Muzong's chamber was called the imperial elder brother. This does not accord with ritual texts.

得修撰官朱儔等狀稱：『禮敘尊尊，不敘親親。陛下于穆宗、敬宗、武宗三室祝文，恐須但稱嗣皇帝臣某昭告于某宗。』臣等同考禮經，於義為允。」從之，貞元十二年，祫祭太廟。近例，祫祭及親拜郊，皆令中使一人引伐國寶至壇所，所以昭示武功。至是上以伐國大事，中使引之非宜，乃令禮官一人，就內庫監領至太廟焉。

Compiler Zhu Chou and others reported: "Ritual orders honor to honor, not kin to kin. For Your Majesty's prayer texts to the three chambers of Muzong, Jingzong, and Wuzong, we fear they should say only: "The succeeding emperor, your subject so-and-so, announces to such-and-such an ancestor."" We together examined the ritual classics; in meaning this is acceptable." The emperor approved. In the twelfth year of Zhenyuan, xia was offered at the Grand Temple. Recent precedent: at xia sacrifice and when the ruler personally worshipped at the suburban altar, one palace envoy was ordered to lead the captured-state treasure to the altar to display martial achievement. On this occasion, because subjugating a state was a great affair, a palace envoy leading it was improper; one ritual officer was ordered to take charge at the inner storehouse and escort it to the Grand Temple.

舊儀，高祖之廟，則開府儀同三司淮安王神通、禮部尚書河間王孝恭、陝東道大行台右僕射鄖國公殷開山、吏部尚書渝國公劉政會配饗。太宗之廟，則司空梁國公房玄齡、尚書右僕射萊國公杜如晦、尚書左僕射申國公高士廉配饗。高宗之廟，則司空英國公李勣、尚書左僕射北平縣公張行成、中書令高唐縣公馬周配饗。中宗之廟，則侍中平陽郡王敬暉、侍中扶陽郡王桓彥范、中書令南陽郡王袁恕己配享。睿宗之廟，則太子太傅許國公蘇瑰、尚書左丞相徐國公劉幽求配饗。

Former observance: at Gaozu's temple, Prince of Huai'an Wang Tong, Minister of Rites Prince of Hejian Wang Xiaogong, Right Vice Director of the Shandong Grand Secretariat Duke of E Yin Kaishan, and Minister of Personnel Duke of Yu Liu Zhenghui received complementary sacrifice. At Taizong's temple, Fang Xuanling, Du Ruhui, and Gao Shilian received complementary sacrifice. At Gaozong's shrine: Li Ji, Zhang Xingcheng, and Ma Zhou shared sacrifice. At Zhongzong's shrine, the officials sharing sacrifice were Jing Hui, Palace Attendant and Prince of Pingyang Commandery; Huan Yanfan, Palace Attendant and Prince of Fuyang Commandery; and Yuan Shuji, Director of the Secretariat and Prince of Nanyang Commandery. At Ruizong's shrine: Su Gui and Liu Youqiu shared sacrifice.

正月，詔：京城章懷、節湣、惠莊、惠文、惠宣太子，與隱太子、懿德太子同為一廟，呼為七太子廟，以便於祀享。太廟配饗功臣，高祖室加裴寂、劉文靜，太宗室加長孫無忌、李靖、杜如晦，高宗室加褚遂良、高季輔、劉仁軌，中宗室加狄仁傑、魏元忠、王同皎等十一人。大祭祀，騂犢減數。十載，太廟置內官。十一載閏三月，制：「自今已後，每月朔望日，宜令尚食造食，薦太廟，每室一牙盤，內官享薦。仍五日一開室門灑掃。」其後又有玄宗子靜德太子廟，肅宗子恭懿太子廟。孝敬廟在東京太廟院內，貞順皇后、讓皇帝廟在京中。餘皆四時致祭。

First month, edict: Zhanghuai, Jiemin, Huizhuang, Huiwen, and Huixuan were united with the Hidden Crown Prince and Yide in one shrine, the Seven Crown Princes' Temple, for easier offerings. Grand Temple merit-sharing was expanded: Pei Ji and Liu Wenjing for Gaozu; Zhangsun Wuji, Li Jing, and Du Ruhui for Taizong; Chu Suiliang, Gao Jifu, and Liu Rengui for Gaozong; Di Renjie, Wei Yuanzhong, Wang Tongjiao, and eight others for Zhongzong. Great sacrifices used fewer red bullocks. In year 10, inner-palace officers were assigned to the Grand Temple. In the eleventh year, intercalary third month, a decree said: "From now on, on the first and fifteenth days of each month, let the Imperial Provisioners prepare food and present it to the Great Temple, one ivory platter for each chamber, with inner officials making the offerings. Still, every five days the chamber doors should be opened and swept." Thereafter there were also temples for Xuanzong's son Crown Prince Jingde and Suzong's son Crown Prince Gongyi. The Xiaojing shrine stood in the Eastern Capital temple precinct; Empress Zhenshun and Emperor Rang had shrines in the capital. All others received seasonal offerings.

Cite this Chapter