1
世宗景明二年夏六月，祕書丞孫惠蔚上言：「臣聞國之大禮，莫崇明祀，祀之大者，莫過禘祫，所以嚴祖敬宗，追養繼孝，合享聖靈，審諦昭穆，遷毀有恒，制尊卑，有定體，誠慤著於中，百順應於外。 是以惟王創制，為建邦之典； 仲尼述定，為不刊之式。 暨秦燔詩書，鴻籍泯滅。 漢氏興求，拾綴遺篆，淹中之經，孔安所得，唯有卿大夫士饋食之篇。 而天子諸侯享廟之祭、禘祫之禮盡亡。 曲臺之記，戴氏所述，然多載尸灌之義，牲獻之數，而行事之法，備物之體，蔑有具焉。 今之取證，唯有王制一簡，公羊一冊。 考此二書，以求厥旨。 自餘經傳，雖時有片記，至於取正，無可依攬。 是以兩漢淵儒、魏晉碩學，咸據斯文，以為朝典。 然持論有深淺，及義有精浮，[1]故令傳記雖一，而探意乖舛。 伏惟孝文皇帝，合德乾元，應靈誕載，玄思洞微，神心暢古，禮括商周，樂宣韶濩，六籍幽而重昭，五典淪而復顯，舉二經於和中，[2]一姬公於洛邑。 陛下叡哲淵凝，欽明道極，應必世之期，屬功成之會，繼文垂則，實惟下武。 而祫禘二殷，國之大事； 蒸嘗合享，朝之盛禮。 此先皇之所留心，聖懷以之永慕。 臣聞司宗初開，致禮清廟，敢竭愚管，輒陳所懷。 謹案王制曰：『天子犆礿、祫禘、祫嘗、祫烝。』 鄭玄曰『天子諸侯之喪畢，合先君之主於祖廟而祭之，謂之祫。 後因以為常』，『魯禮，三年喪畢而祫於太祖，明年春禘於羣廟，自爾之後，五年而再殷祭，一祫一禘』。 春秋公羊魯文二年：『八月丁卯，大事于太廟。』 傳曰：『大事者何？ 大祫也。 大祫者何？ 合祭也。 毀廟之主，陳於太祖。 未毀廟之主，皆升，合食于太祖。 五年而再殷祭。』 何休曰：『陳者，就陳列太祖前。 太祖東鄉，昭南鄉，穆北鄉，其餘孫從王父。 父曰昭，子曰穆。』 又曰：『殷，盛也，謂三年祫，五年禘。 禘所以異於祫者，功臣皆祭也。 祫猶合也，禘猶諦也，審諦無所遺失。』 察記傳之文，何、鄭祫禘之義，略可得聞。 然則三年喪畢，祫祭太祖，明年春祀，遍禘羣廟。 此禮之正也，古之道也。 又案魏氏故事，魏明帝以景初三年正月崩，至五年正月，積二十五晦為大祥。 [3]太常孔美、博士趙怡等以為禫在二十七月，到其年四月，依禮應祫。 散騎常侍王肅、博士樂詳等以為禫在祥月，至其年二月，宜應祫祭。 雖孔王異議，六八殊制，至於喪畢之祫，明年之禘，其議一焉。 陛下永惟孝思，因心即禮，取鄭捨王，禫終此晦，來月中旬，禮應大祫。 六室神祏，升食太祖。 [4]明年春享，咸禘羣廟。 自茲以後，五年為常。 又古之祭法，時祫並行，天子先祫後時，諸侯先時後祫。 此於古為當，在今則煩。 且禮有升降，事有文節，通時之制，聖人弗違。 當祫之月，宜減時祭，以從要省。 然大禮久廢，羣議或殊，以臣觀之，理在無怪。 何者？ 心制既終，二殷惟始，祫禘之正，實在於斯。 若停而闕之，唯行時祭，七聖不聞合享，百辟不覩盛事，何以宣昭令問，垂式後昆乎？ 皇朝同等三代，治邁終古，而令徽典缺於昔人，鴻美慚於往志，此禮所不行，情所未許。 臣學不鈎深，思無經遠，徒閱章句，蔑爾無立。 但飲澤聖時，銘恩天造，是以妄盡區區，冀有塵露。 所陳蒙允，請付禮官，集定儀注。」
In the sixth month of summer in the second year of Jingming under Emperor Xuanwu, Secretariat Assistant Sun Huiwei submitted a memorial: "I have heard that among a state's greatest ceremonies, none surpasses honoring and clarifying sacrifice, and among sacrifices none surpass the ti and di. By these rites one enforces reverence for ancestors and respect for the lineage, pursues nurture and continues filial piety, unites the sacred spirits in shared enjoyment, scrutinizes and fixes the zhao and mu arrangement, sets constant rules for moving and retiring spirit tablets, regulates rank and precedence in a fixed form, and makes sincerity and reverence manifest within so that the hundred forms of obedience respond without. For this reason the sovereign kings of old established institutions as the canon for founding a state; Confucius recounted and fixed them into an immutable standard. When the Qin burned the Odes and Documents, the great canonical texts were lost. When the Han dynasty arose it sought and gathered what survived, patching together scattered texts; of the classics from Yanzhong that Kong An recovered, only the sections on presentation of food by ministers, grandees, and officers remained. Yet the temple sacrifices by which the Son of Heaven and feudal lords honored their ancestors, and the rites of ti and di, were entirely lost. The Quetai records set forth by the Dai clan mostly record the rites of presenting to the impersonator and pouring libations and the numbers of victims offered, but the methods of conducting the ceremony and the forms for preparing the ritual objects are nowhere complete. For evidence today we have only one passage from the Royal Regulations and one volume of the Gongyang Commentary. We must examine these two books to seek their purport. Among the remaining classics and commentaries there are occasional fragmentary records, but for establishing authoritative standards there is nothing reliable to draw on. For this reason the profound scholars of the two Han dynasties and the eminent scholars of Wei and Jin all took this text as the court canon. Yet their arguments differ in depth, and their interpretations in refinement or superficiality,[1] so that although the transmitted records are the same, their readings of intent conflict. I consider that Emperor Wen united his virtue with Heaven's origin, responded to the numinous and came forth in his age, his profound thought penetrating the subtle and his inspired mind fluent in antiquity; his rites embraced Shang and Zhou, his music spread the Shao and Huo; the six classics, though obscured, shone forth again, and the five canons, though lost, reappeared; he raised the two classics in harmony[2] and unified the Duke of Zhou's legacy at Luoyi. Your Majesty is sagely and wise, profound and concentrated, revering the Way to its utmost, meeting the term of a destined generation and the juncture when great works are fulfilled, continuing culture and handing down models—truly the heir to King Wu. Yet the two great Yin sacrifices, di and ti, are matters of the greatest state importance; and the zheng and chang sacrifices with united enjoyment are the court's greatest ceremonies. These were what the late emperor kept at heart, and Your Majesty's sacred mind cherishes them without end. I have heard that the Director of Ancestral Worship has newly opened the rites and extended ceremony to the Pure Temple; I dare offer my humble thoughts and set forth what I hold. Respectfully examining the Royal Regulations, it states: "The Son of Heaven exclusively performs the yue sacrifice, di and ti, di and chang, and di and zheng." Zheng Xuan says: "When mourning for the Son of Heaven or feudal lords is complete, combining the spirit tablets of former lords in the ancestral temple and sacrificing to them is called di. Later this became the regular practice." "In Lu ritual, when the three-year mourning is complete one performs di at the Grand Ancestor; the next spring one performs ti at all the temples; thereafter, every five years there are again two Yin sacrifices, one di and one ti." The Gongyang Commentary on the Spring and Autumn Annals, Duke Wen of Lu, year 2: "On dingmao day of the eighth month, a great affair was held at the Grand Temple." The commentary says: "What is the great affair?" It is the great di. What is the great di? It is a united sacrifice. The tablets of shrines that have been retired are displayed before the Grand Ancestor. The tablets of shrines not yet retired all ascend and share the offering at the Grand Ancestor. Every five years the two Yin sacrifices are performed again." He Xiu says: "To display means to arrange them in array before the Grand Ancestor. The Grand Ancestor faces east; zhao faces south; mu faces north; the remaining descendants follow their royal fathers. The father is called zhao; the son is called mu." He also says: "Yin means abundant; it refers to di in the third year and ti in the fifth year. Ti differs from di in that meritorious ministers are all included in the sacrifice. Di means uniting; ti means examining; by examining carefully, nothing is left out." Examining the transmitted records, the meaning of di and ti in He Xiu and Zheng Xuan can be grasped in outline. Thus when the three-year mourning is complete, one performs di at the Grand Ancestor; the next spring one sacrifices and performs ti throughout all the temples. This is the correct form of the rite, the way of antiquity. Further examining Wei precedents: Emperor Ming of Wei died in the first month of the third year of Jingchu; by the first month of the fifth year, twenty-five last days of the month had accumulated to mark the great auspicious end of mourning. [3] Director of Ceremonies Kong Mei, Academician Zhao Yi, and others held that the chan falls in the twenty-seventh month; when the fourth month of that year arrived, di should be performed according to ritual. Cavalier Attendant-in-Ordinary Wang Su, Academician Yue Xiang, and others held that the chan falls in the auspicious month; when the second month of that year arrived, di sacrifice should be performed. Although Kong and Wang disagreed and the sixth- and eighth-month systems differed, on di when mourning is complete and ti the following year their views were the same. Your Majesty forever ponders filial devotion and follows the heart in enacting ritual, taking Zheng Xuan and setting aside Wang Su; the chan ends on this last day of the month, and in the middle of next month the great di should be performed according to ritual. The spirit tablets of the six chambers should ascend to share the offering at the Grand Ancestor. [4] Next spring's seasonal sacrifice should extend ti throughout all the temples. Thereafter, every five years should be the regular practice. Further, in ancient sacrificial law seasonal sacrifices and di proceeded in parallel: the Son of Heaven performed di before the seasonal sacrifices, feudal lords the seasonal sacrifices before di. This was appropriate in antiquity, but today it would be burdensome. Moreover ritual has its gradations and affairs their formal restraint; the regulation suited to the times is what the sage does not violate. In the month when di is performed, seasonal sacrifices should be reduced to follow essential economy. Yet the great rite has long been abandoned and opinions may differ; in my view there is nothing strange in this. Why? The heart's mourning regulation has ended and the two Yin sacrifices are only beginning; the true form of di and ti lies precisely here. If it is halted and omitted and only seasonal sacrifices are performed, the seven sages would not hear united enjoyment and the hundred officials would not behold the grand ceremony—how could one proclaim a shining reputation and hand down a model to later generations? Our dynasty equals the Three Dynasties and its governance surpasses all antiquity, yet to let a splendid canon fall short of what former men possessed and great beauty be shamed before past records—this the rite cannot permit and feeling cannot allow. My learning does not reach the profound and my thought lacks classic breadth; I have merely read passages and clauses and have nothing established to my credit. Yet having received the bounty of this sage age and engraved gratitude for Heaven's gift, I presumptuously offer my paltry thoughts, hoping they may amount to a speck of dew. If what I have set forth is approved, I request that it be handed to the ritual officials to assemble and fix the ceremonial regulations."
2
詔曰：「禮貴循古，何必改作。 且先聖久遵，綿代恒典，豈朕冲闇，所宜革之。 且禮祭之議，國之至重，先代碩儒，論或不一。 可付八坐、五省、太常、國子參定以聞。」 七月，侍中、錄尚書事、北海王詳等言：「奉旨集議，僉以為禘祫之設，前代彝典，惠蔚所陳，有允舊義。 請依前剋敬享清宮，其求省時祭，理實宜爾。 但求之解注，下逼列國，兼時奠之敬，事難輒省。 請移仲月，擇吉重聞。」 制可。
An edict said: "Ritual values following antiquity—why must we change and create anew? Moreover the former sages long observed it as the constant canon of generation after generation—how could I, young and unlearned, be fit to reform it? Moreover discussion of ritual sacrifice is of the utmost importance to the state, and eminent scholars of former ages did not always agree. Let it be handed to the Eight Seats, the Five Ministries, the Director of Ceremonies, and the Imperial University to deliberate jointly and report." In the seventh month, Attendant-in-Ordinary and Recorder of the Masters of Writing, Prince Xiang of Beihai, and others said: "Having received the edict we assembled for discussion; all agreed that the establishment of ti and di is the constant canon of former ages and that what Huiwei set forth accords with established meaning. We request that according to the previous schedule sacrifice be respectfully performed at the Pure Palace; as for the request to reduce seasonal sacrifices, that is indeed reasonable in principle. Yet when one seeks its full explanation it presses down on all the feudal states, and combining the seasonal presentations of respect—the matter is hard to reduce immediately. We request postponing it to the intercalary month and choosing an auspicious day to report again." The regulation was approved.
3
十一月壬寅，改築圓丘於伊水之陽。 乙卯，仍有事焉。
On renyin day of the eleventh month, the Round Mound altar was rebuilt on the south bank of the Yi River. On yimao day, the ceremony was performed again.
4
延昌四年正月，世宗崩，肅宗即位。 三月甲子，尚書令、任城王澄奏，太常卿崔亮上言：「秋七月應祫祭于太祖，今世宗宣武皇帝主雖入廟，然烝嘗時祭，猶別寢室，至於殷祫，宜存古典。 案禮，三年喪畢，祫於太祖，明年春禘於羣廟。 又案杜預亦云，卒哭而除，三年喪畢而禘。 魏武宣后以太和四年六月崩，其月既葬，除服即吉。 四時行事，而猶未禘。 王肅、韋誕並以為今除即吉，故特時祭。 至於禘祫，宜存古禮。 高堂隆亦如肅議，於是停不殷祭。 仰尋太和二十三年四月一日，高祖孝文皇帝崩，其年十月祭廟，景明二年秋七月祫於太祖，三年春禘於羣廟。 亦三年乃祫。 謹準古禮及晉魏之議，并景明故事，愚謂來秋七月，祫祭應停，宜待三年終乃後祫禘。」 [5]詔曰：「太常援引古今，並有證據，可依請。」
In the first month of the fourth year of Yanzhang, Emperor Xuanwu died and Emperor Xiaoming ascended the throne. On jiazi day of the third month, Master of Writing Prince Cheng of Rencheng memorialized that Director of Ceremonies Cui Liang had submitted: "Di sacrifice should be performed at the Grand Ancestor in the seventh month of autumn. Although the tablet of Emperor Xuanwu has entered the temple, for zheng, chang, and seasonal sacrifices it still has a separate chamber; for the great Yin di, the ancient canon should be preserved. According to ritual, when the three-year mourning is complete one performs di at the Grand Ancestor, and the next spring ti at all the temples. Du Yu also says that mourning garments are removed at the end of wailing and ti is performed when the three-year mourning is complete. Empress Wu Xuan of Wei died in the sixth month of the fourth year of Taihe; that same month she was buried, mourning garments were removed, and auspicious rites were immediately resumed. Seasonal rites proceeded through the four seasons, yet ti was still not performed. Wang Su and Wei Dan both held that because mourning is removed and auspicious rites resumed immediately, only seasonal sacrifices are performed in the interim. As for ti and di, the ancient rites should be preserved. Gao Tanglong also followed Wang Su's view, and so Yin sacrifices were halted. Looking back to the first day of the fourth month of the twenty-third year of Taihe, when the High Ancestor Emperor Wen died: temple sacrifice was performed that year in the tenth month; di at the Grand Ancestor in the seventh month of autumn of the second year of Jingming; ti at all the temples in the third spring. Again, di was performed only after three years. Respectfully following ancient ritual, the discussions of Jin and Wei, and the Jingming precedent, I consider that the di sacrifice planned for the seventh month of next autumn should be halted; one should wait until the three years of mourning are complete and only then perform di and ti." [5] An edict said: "The Director of Ceremonies cites antiquity and the present with supporting evidence; his request may be followed."
5
熙平二年三月癸未，太常少卿元端上言：「謹案禮記祭法：『有虞氏禘黃帝而郊嚳，祖顓頊而宗堯。 夏后氏亦禘黃帝而郊鯀，祖顓頊而宗禹。 殷人禘嚳而郊冥，祖契而宗湯。 周人禘嚳而郊稷，祖文王而宗武王。』 鄭玄注云：[6]『禘郊祖宗，謂祭祀以配食也。 有虞氏以上尚德，禘郊祖宗，配用有德者。 自夏以下，稍用其姓代之。』 是故周人以后稷為始祖，文武為二祧。 訖於周世，配祭不毀。 案禮，嚳雖無廟，配食禘祭。 謹詳聖朝以太祖道武皇帝配圓丘，道穆皇后劉氏配方澤； 太宗明元皇帝配上帝，明密皇后杜氏配地祇； 又以顯祖獻文皇帝配雩祀。 太宗明元皇帝之廟既毀，上帝地祇，配祭有式。 國之大事，唯祀與戎，廟配事重，不敢專決，請召羣官集議以聞。」 靈太后令曰「依請」。 於是太師、高陽王雍，太傅、領太尉公、清河王懌，太保、領司徒公、廣平王懷，司空公、領尚書令、任城王澄，侍中、中書監胡國珍，侍中、領著作郎崔光等議：「竊以尚德尊功，其來自昔，郊稷宗文，周之茂典。 仰惟世祖太武皇帝以神武纂業，克清禍亂，德濟生民，功加四海，宜配南郊。 高祖孝文皇帝大聖膺期，惟新魏道，刑措勝殘，功同天地，宜配明堂。」 令曰：「依議施行。」
On guiwei day of the third month of the second year of Xiping, Vice Director of Ceremonies Yuan Duan submitted: "Respectfully examining the Record of Rites, 'Methods of Sacrifice': 'The Youyu clan performed ti to the Yellow Emperor and suburban sacrifice to Ku, took Zhuanxu as zu and Yao as zong. The Xia likewise performed ti to the Yellow Emperor and suburban sacrifice to Gun, took Zhuanxu as zu and Yu as zong. The Yin performed ti to Ku and suburban sacrifice to Ming, took Xie as zu and Tang as zong. The Zhou performed ti to Ku and suburban sacrifice to Ji, took King Wen as zu and King Wu as zong.' Zheng Xuan's commentary says:[6] 'Ti, suburban, zu, and zong refer to sacrifices with accompanying offerings. From the Youyu clan upward they valued virtue and used the virtuous as accompanying offerings for ti, suburban, zu, and zong. From the Xia downward they gradually used men of their own lineage in place.' Therefore the Zhou took Hou Ji as founding ancestor and Wen and Wu as the two tiao shrines. Throughout the Zhou, accompanying sacrifices were never retired. According to ritual, although Ku had no temple of his own, he received accompanying offerings at ti sacrifice. Examining in detail our sage dynasty: the Grand Ancestor Emperor Daowu accompanies sacrifice at the Round Mound, and Empress Dowager Dao Mu, Lady Liu, at the Square Marsh; the Founding Ancestor Emperor Mingyuan accompanies the Supreme Lord, and Empress Ming Mi of the Du clan accompanies the Earth Spirits; and the Manifest Ancestor Emperor Xianwen accompanies the yu sacrifice. The shrine of the Founding Ancestor Emperor Mingyuan has already been retired; for the Supreme Lord and Earth Spirits, accompanying sacrifice follows an established pattern. The great affairs of the state are sacrifice and war alone; temple accompanying offerings are weighty matters. I dare not decide alone and request that all officials be summoned to deliberate jointly and report." Empress Dowager Ling ordered: "As requested." Thereupon Grand Preceptor Prince Yong of Gaoyang, Grand Tutor and Concurrent Grand Commandant Prince Yi of Qinghe, Grand Guardian and Concurrent Minister of Education Prince Huai of Guangping, Minister of Works and Concurrent Master of Writing Prince Cheng of Rencheng, Attendant-in-Ordinary and Director of the Palace Secretariat Hu Guozhen, Attendant-in-Ordinary and Concurrent Director of the Bureau of Compilation Cui Guang, and others discussed: "We consider that honoring virtue and respecting merit come from antiquity; suburban sacrifice to Ji and zong to Wen are the Zhou's flourishing canon. We consider that the Manifest Ancestor Emperor Taiwu, by divine martial prowess succeeding to the enterprise, cleared away calamity and disorder, succored the living people, and extended his merit to the four seas—he should accompany sacrifice at the southern suburban altar. The High Ancestor Emperor Wen, great sage receiving the mandate, alone renewed the Wei Way, set punishments aside in a reign surpassing remnant mercy, and achieved merit equal to Heaven and Earth—he should accompany sacrifice at the Bright Hall." An edict stated: "Carry out according to the discussion."
6
七月戊辰，侍中、領軍將軍、江陽王繼表言：「臣功緦之內，太祖道武皇帝之後，於臣始是曾孫。 然道武皇帝傳業無窮，四祖三宗，功德最重，配天郊祀，百世不遷。 而曾玄之孫，烝嘗之薦，不預拜於廟庭； 霜露之感，闕陪奠於階席。 今七廟之後，非直隔歸胙之靈； 五服之孫，亦不霑出身之敍。 校之墳史則不然，驗之人情則未允。 何者？ 禮云，祖遷於上，宗易於下。 臣曾祖是帝，世數未遷，便疏同庶族，而孫不預祭。 斯之為屈，今古罕有。 昔堯敦九族，周隆本枝，故能磐石維城，禦侮於外。 今臣之所親，生見隔棄，豈所以楨幹根本，隆建公族者也。 伏見高祖孝文皇帝著令銓衡，取曾祖之服，以為資蔭，至今行之，相傳不絕。 而況曾祖為帝，而不見錄。 伏願天鑒，有以照臨，令皇恩洽穆，宗人咸敍。 請付外博議，永為定準。」 靈太后令曰：「付八座集禮官議定以聞。」
On the wuchen day of the seventh month, Attendant-in-Ordinary, Commander-in-Chief, Prince Ji of Jiangyang submitted a memorial: "Within the royal clan's utmost-fine mourning degree, as a descendant of the Grand Ancestor Emperor Daowu, I am only a great-grandson. Yet Emperor Daowu transmitted the enterprise without end; the four ancestors and three zong bear the weightiest merit and virtue, accompany Heaven at suburban sacrifice, and are not moved for a hundred generations. Yet great-great-grandsons and great-grandsons do not participate in bowing in the temple courtyard at the seasonal offerings; and at the sentiment of frost and dew they are absent from accompanying offerings on the steps. Now descendants of the seven temples are not merely cut off from receiving sacrificial flesh; descendants within five degrees of mourning also receive no birth-order ranking in precedence. Compared with canonical histories this is not so; tested against human sentiment it is unacceptable. Why? The Rites say: zu move upward; zong shift downward. My great-grandfather was an emperor; the generations have not yet shifted, yet we are treated as distant as common clans, and as grandsons we do not participate in sacrifice. Such an injustice is rare in past and present. In antiquity Yao enriched the nine kin, and Zhou elevated the root branch, and thus they were bedrock securing the realm and repelled insult from without. Now those close to me are cast off in life—how is this the way to be pillars and trunk for the root and to elevate and establish the ducal clan? I have seen that Emperor Wen established regulations in weighing and balance, taking the great-grandfather mourning grade as the basis for inheritance privilege—a practice carried on to this day without interruption. How much more when one's great-grandfather was an emperor and is not recorded in temple rites. I pray that Heaven's mirror may illuminate this, that imperial grace may be harmonious, and that all lineage kin may receive their proper ranking. I request that this be referred for broad external discussion and made the permanent standard." Empress Dowager Ling ordered: "Refer this to the Eight Dignitaries to assemble ritual officers for deliberation and report."
7
四門小學博士王僧奇等議：「案孝經曰：『郊祀后稷以配天，宗祀文王於明堂，以配上帝。』 然則太祖不遷者，尊王業之初基，二祧不毀者，旌不朽之洪烈。 其旁枝遠胄，豈得同四廟之親哉？ 故禮記婚義曰：『古者婦人先嫁三月，祖廟未毀，教於公宮。 祖廟既毀，教于宗室。』 又文王世子曰：『五廟之孫，祖廟未毀，雖庶人冠娶必告，死必赴，不忘親也。 親未絕而列於庶人，賤無能也。』 鄭注云：『赴告於君也。 實四廟言五者，容顯考為始封君子故也。』 [7]鄭君別其四廟，理協二祭。 而四廟者，在當世服屬之內，可以與於子孫之位，若廟毀服盡，豈得同於此例乎？ 敢竭愚昧，請以四廟為斷。」
Doctor Wang Siqi of the Four Gates Elementary School and others argued: "The Classic of Filial Piety says: 'At suburban sacrifice Hou Ji accompanies Heaven; at zong sacrifice King Wen is honored in the Bright Hall to accompany the Supreme Lord. Thus the Grand Ancestor, not moved, honors the founding base of kingship; the two tiao, not destroyed, mark imperishable great magnificence. How can collateral branches and distant descendants share the same kinship as the four temples? Therefore the Record of Rites, Marriage Meaning, says: "In antiquity, when a woman was betrothed three months in advance, if the zu temple had not yet been retired, she was instructed in the duke's palace. When the zu temple had been retired, she was instructed in the lineage chamber." Further, the Son of King Wen says: "Grandsons of the five temples—while the zu temple is not retired, even as commoners they must announce capping and marriage and report death, never forgetting kin." Kinship not yet ended yet they are ranked as commoners—this degrades those who lack standing." Zheng's commentary says: "Reporting is to the lord." To speak of five temples while there are actually four accommodates the case where the illustrious father was the first enfeoffed gentleman." [7]Master Zheng distinguished the four temples, and his reasoning coordinates the two sacrifices. The four temples fall within the present generation's mourning kinship, and one may hold the status of descendant there—but if temples are retired and mourning exhausted, how can one be treated the same under this precedent? I dare offer this humble view and ask that the four temples be taken as the boundary."
8
國子博士李琰之議：「案祭統曰：『有事於太廟，羣昭羣穆咸在。』 鄭氏注：『昭穆咸在，謂同宗父子皆來。』 古禮之制，如是其廣，而當今儀注，唯限親廟四，愚竊疑矣。 何以明之？ 設使世祖之子男於今存者，既身是戚蕃，號為重子，可得賓於門外，不預碑鼎之事哉？ 又因宜變法，禮有其說。 記言：『五廟之孫，祖廟未毀，為庶人，冠娶必告，死必赴。』 注曰：『實四廟而言五者，容顯考始封之君子。』 今因太祖之廟在，仍通其曾玄侍祠，與彼古記，甚相符會。 且國家議親之律，指取天子之玄孫，乃不旁準於時后。 至於助祭，必謂與世主相倫，將難均一。 壽有短長，世有延促，終當何時可得齊同。 謂宜入廟之制，率從議親之條； 祖祧之裔，各聽盡其玄孫。 使得駿奔堂壇，肅承禘礿，則情理差通。 不宜復各為例，令事事舛駁。」
Doctor Li Yanzhi of the National University argued: "The Sacrificial Summary says: 'When there is business at the Grand Temple, all zhao and all mu are present. Zheng's commentary states: 'All zhao and mu present' means fathers and sons of the same zong all attend." The ancient rite was designed so broadly, yet present-day ceremony and statutes limit participation to four close temples—I privately find this doubtful. How may this be clarified? Suppose sons of the Manifest Ancestor who survive today—they are imperial princes and dukes, styled important sons—could they be mere guests outside the gate and excluded from stele and tripod rites? Further, adapting ritual to circumstances—the Rites themselves provide doctrine for this. The Record says: "Grandsons of the five temples—while the zu temple is not retired, though they be commoners, they must announce capping and marriage and report death." The commentary says: "To speak of five temples while there are actually four accommodates the illustrious father as the first enfeoffed gentleman." Now, because the Grand Ancestor's temple still stands, we still extend great-great-grandsons and great-grandsons to attend sacrifice—this accords very well with that ancient record. Moreover, the state's law on deliberating kin takes specifically the Son of Heaven's fourth-generation descendants and does not extend sideways to contemporaneous empresses. As for assisting at sacrifice, it must mean parity with the reigning lord's generation—and that will be hard to make uniform. Life has brevity and length, and generations have prolongation and shortening—ultimately, when can there be uniformity? I propose that the rule for entering temples should generally follow the kin-deliberation articles; and descendants of zu and tiao should each be allowed through to their fourth-generation descendants. This would enable them to rush to the hall and altar and solemnly receive the ti and yue—then sentiment and principle would largely accord. One should not again make separate precedents for each case and leave everything contradictory."
9
侍中、司空公、領尚書令、任城王澄，侍中、尚書左僕射元暉奏：「臣等參量琰之等議，雖為始封君子，又祭統曰：『有事於太廟，羣昭羣穆咸在，而不失其倫。』 鄭注云昭穆，謂同宗父子皆來也。 言未毀及同宗，則共四廟之辭。 云未絕與父子，明崇五屬之稱。 天子諸侯，繼立無殊，吉凶之赴，同止四廟。 祖祧雖存，親級彌遠，告赴拜薦，典記無文。 斯由祖遷於上，見仁親之義疏； 宗易於下，著五服之恩斷。 江陽之於今帝也，計親而枝宗三易，數世則廟應四遷，吉凶尚不告聞，拜薦寧容輒預。 高祖孝文皇帝聖德玄覽，師古立政，陪拜止於四廟，哀恤斷自緦宗。 即之人情，冥然符一； 推之禮典，事在難違。 此所謂明王相沿，今古不革者也。」
Attendant-in-Ordinary, Minister of Works, Concurrent Master of Writing Prince Cheng of Rencheng, and Attendant-in-Ordinary, Left Vice Minister of the Master of Writing Yuan Hui submitted: "We weighed Yan Zhi's argument—although it concerns a first enfeoffed gentleman, the Sacrificial Summary also says: 'When there is business at the Grand Temple, all zhao and all mu are present, without disrupting their order. Zheng's commentary on zhao and mu means fathers and sons of the same zong all attend. Speaking of 'not yet retired' and 'same zong' is the wording of sharing four temples. Speaking of kin 'not yet ended' between fathers and sons clarifies esteem for the designation of five degrees. For the Son of Heaven and feudal lords alike, succession is without difference—auspicious and inauspicious reporting alike stops at four temples. Though zu and tiao remain, kinship grows more distant—announcement, reporting, bowing, and offering: the canonical records have no provision. This is because zu move upward, showing that humane kinship grows sparse; and zong shift downward, marking the severance of five-degree mourning grace. For Jiangyang in relation to the present emperor, reckoning kin and branches the zong has shifted three times; after several generations the temples should have shifted four times—even auspicious and inauspicious matters are not announced; how can bowing and offering be rashly permitted? Emperor Wen's sagely virtue and profound vision, taking antiquity as teacher in establishing government, limited accompanying bowing to four temples and cut mourning compassion off at the utmost-fine zong. As for human sentiment, it obscurely accords; and pushed against the ritual canon, the matter is hard to disobey. This is what is called enlightened kings succeeding one another, unchanging from past to present."
10
太常少卿元端議：「禮記祭法云：王立七廟，曰考廟，曰王考廟，曰皇考廟，曰顯考廟，曰祖考廟，遠廟為祧，有二祧。 而祖考以功重不遷，二祧以盛德不毀。 迭遷之義，其在四廟也。 祭統云：祭有十倫之義，六曰見親疏之殺焉。 『夫祭有昭穆，昭穆者所以別父子遠近、長幼親疏之序，而無亂也』，是故有倫。 注云：『昭穆咸在，同宗父子皆來。』 指謂當廟父子為羣，不繫於昭穆也。 若一公十子，便為羣公子，豈待數公而立稱乎？ 文王世子云『五廟之孫，祖廟未毀』，雖為有所援引，然與朝議不同。 如依其議，匪直太祖曾玄，諸廟子孫，悉應預列。 既無正據，竊謂太廣。 臣等愚見，請同僧奇等議。」
Vice Director of the Grand Ritual Office Yuan Duan argued: "The Record of Rites, Sacrificial Law, says that the king establishes seven temples—the Father temple, the Royal Father temple, the Imperial Father temple, the Illustrious Father temple, the Ancestor Father temple; distant temples become tiao, and there are two tiao. The Ancestor Father, because of meritorious weight, is not moved; the two tiao, because of abundant virtue, are not destroyed. The meaning of successive shifting lies in the four temples. The Sacrificial Summary says sacrifice embodies ten orders of relationship; the sixth is seeing the gradations of kin near and far. "Sacrifice has zhao and mu—zhao and mu distinguish father-son distance and nearness and senior and junior kin order without disorder"—therefore there is order. The commentary says: "All zhao and mu present—fathers and sons of the same zong all attend." This means fathers and sons of the current temple form a cluster, not bound to zhao and mu seating. If one duke has ten sons, they are at once a cluster of the duke's sons—must one wait for several dukes before the designation applies? The Son of King Wen says "grandsons of the five temples, zu temple not retired"—although there is some citation, it differs from the court discussion. If we follow that argument, not only the Grand Ancestor's great-great-grandsons and great-grandsons—all temples' descendants would have to be listed. Lacking proper evidence, I privately deem it too broad. Our humble view is that we should agree with Sengqi and others' argument."
11
靈太后令曰：「議親律注云：『非唯當世之屬籍，歷謂先帝之五世。』 此乃明親親之義篤，骨肉之恩重。 尚書以遠及諸孫，太廣致疑。 百僚助祭，可得言狹也！ 祖廟未毀，曾玄不預壇堂之敬，便是宗人之昵，反外於附庸，王族之近，更疏於羣辟。 先朝舊儀，草創未定，刊制律憲，垂之不朽。 琰之援據，甚允情理。 可依所執。」
Empress Dowager Ling ordered: "The commentary on the kin-deliberation law says: 'Not only the present generation's registered kin—historically it means the former emperor's fifth generation. This clarifies the depth of kin-loving meaning and the weight of bone-and-flesh grace. The Master of Writing held that extending so far to all grandsons was too broad and raised doubt. That many officials assist at sacrifice—can that be called narrow! While the zu temple is not retired, great-great-grandsons and great-grandsons excluded from hall and altar reverence means that lineage kin are intimate yet cast outside feudatory attachment, and the royal clan's nearness becomes more distant than the host of ministers. The former court's old ceremony was founded but not fixed—it is time to engrave regulations and statutes to hand down imperishably. Yan Zhi's citations accord very well with sentiment and principle. Accept what he holds."
12
十二月丁未，侍中、司空公、領尚書令、任城王澄，度支尚書崔亮奏：「謹案禮記：曾子問曰：諸侯旅見天子，不得成禮者幾？ 孔子曰：四，太廟火、日蝕、后之喪、雨沾服失容則廢。 臣等謂元日萬國賀，應是諸侯旅見之義。 若禘廢朝會，孔子應云五而獨言四，明不廢朝賀也。 鄭玄禮注云：『魯禮，三年喪畢，祫於太祖，明年春，禘羣廟。』 又鄭志：檢魯禮，春秋昭公十一年夏五月，夫人歸氏薨。 十三年五月大祥，七月釋禫，公會劉子及諸侯于平丘，八月歸，不及於祫； 冬，公如晉，明十四年春，歸祫，明十五年春乃禘。 經曰：『二月癸酉，有事於武宮。』 傳曰：『禘於武公。』 謹案明堂位曰：『魯，王禮也。』 喪畢祫禘，似有退理。 詳考古禮，未有以祭事廢元會者。 禮云『吉事先近日』，脫不吉，容改筮三旬。 尋攝太史令趙翼等列稱，正月二十六日祭亦吉。 請移禘祀在中旬十四日，時祭移二十六日，猶曰春禘，又非退義。 祭則無疏怠之譏，三元有順軌之美。 既被成旨，宜即宣行。 臣等伏度國之大事，在祀與戎。 君舉必書，恐貽後誚。 輒訪引古籍，竊有未安。 臣等學缺通經，識不稽古，備位樞納，可否必陳。 冒陳所見，伏聽裁衷。」 靈太后令曰：「可如所執。」
On the dingwei day of the twelfth month, Attendant-in-Ordinary, Minister of Works, Concurrent Master of Writing Prince Cheng of Rencheng, and Minister of Revenue Cui Liang submitted: "Respectfully examining the Record of Rites: Zengzi asked, When feudal lords travel to audience with the Son of Heaven but cannot complete the rite, how many cases are there? Confucius said: Four—the Grand Temple burns, there is an eclipse of the sun, the empress is in mourning, or rain soaks the robes so deportment is lost—then the rite is suspended. We consider that the New Year's Day when the myriad states offer congratulations should be the meaning of feudal lords' travel to audience. If the di were suspended and court assembly abolished, Confucius should have said five but spoke only of four—clearly court congratulations are not suspended. Zheng Xuan's ritual commentary says: "In Lu ritual, when three-year mourning ends, one conjoins at the Grand Ancestor; the next spring, di is offered at all temples." Also in Zheng's Records: examining Lu ritual, in the eleventh year of Duke Zhao in the Spring and Autumn Annals, in the fifth month of summer, the Lady of the Gui clan, the duchess, died. In the thirteenth year, the fifth month was the great culmination; in the seventh month provisional mourning was released; the duke met the Viscount Liu and the feudal lords at Pingqiu; in the eighth month he returned—too late for the conjoining; in winter the duke went to Jin—making clear that in spring of the fourteenth year he returned for the conjoining, and that only in spring of the fifteenth year was the di performed. The classic says: "In the second month, on the day guiyou, there was business at the Martial Shrine." The commentary says: "Di was offered to Duke Wu." Respectfully examining Bright Hall Positions: "Lu practiced king ritual." Conjoining and di after mourning ends seems to allow reasoning for deferral. Examining ancient ritual in detail, there is no precedent for suspending the New Year assembly because of sacrificial business. The Rites say "auspicious affairs should be moved to a nearer day"—if the day is inauspicious, the divination may be changed within thirty days. Pursuing the report of Acting Grand Astrologer Zhao Yi and others, who listed and stated that the twenty-sixth day of the first month is also auspicious. We request moving the di sacrifice to the fourteenth day of the month's middle ten days and moving the seasonal sacrifice to the twenty-sixth—it would still be called spring di, and would not constitute deferral in meaning. Sacrifice would incur no censure of neglect, and the Three Origins would retain the beauty of an orderly course. Having received approved intent, this should at once be announced and carried out. We bow and consider that the great affairs of the state lie in sacrifice and war. Every act of the ruler must be recorded, lest blame fall on us from posterity. Having repeatedly consulted and cited ancient texts, I am privately not at ease with this. We are deficient in learning and do not master the classics; our knowledge does not rest on antiquity; we merely fill posts at the pivot gate, yet we must state our approval or rejection. We presumptuously present our views and bow to await Your Majesty's balanced decision." Empress Dowager Ling ordered: "Let it be as you have argued."
13
初，世宗永平、延昌中，欲建明堂。 而議者或云五室，或云九室，頻屬年饑，遂寢。 至是復議之，詔從五室。 及元叉執政，遂改營九室。 值世亂不成，宗配之禮，迄無所設。
Earlier, during the Yongping and Yanzhang periods under Emperor Xuanwu, there was a plan to build the Bright Hall. Debaters argued either for five chambers or for nine chambers, but repeated years of famine caused the project to be laid aside. At this time the matter was debated again, and an edict adopted the five-chamber plan. When Yuan Cha came to power, the construction was changed to nine chambers. Worldly disorder prevented completion, and the rites of ancestral matching were never established.
14
案王制云：諸侯祭二昭二穆，與太祖之廟而五。 又小記云：王者立四廟。 鄭玄云：「高祖已下，與始祖而五。」 明立廟之正，以親為限，不過於四。 其外有大功者，然後為祖宗。 然則無太祖者，止於四世，有太祖乃得為五，禮之正文也。 文王世子云：「五廟之孫，祖廟未毀，雖為庶人，冠、娶妻必告。」 鄭玄云：「實四廟而言五廟者，容高祖為始封君之子。」 [8]明始封之君，在四世之外，正位太祖，乃得稱五廟之孫。 若未有太祖，已祀五世，則鄭無為釋高祖為始封君之子也。 此先儒精義，當今顯證也。 又喪服傳曰：「若公子之子孫，有封為國君者，則世世祖是人也，不祖公子。」 鄭玄云：「謂後世為君者，祖此受封之君，不得祀別子也。 公子若在高祖已下，則如其親服，後世遷之，乃毀其廟爾。」 明始封猶在親限，故祀止高祖。 又云如親而遷，尤知高祖之父，不立廟矣。 此又立廟明法，與今事相當者也。 又禮緯云：「夏四廟，至子孫五。 殷五廟，至子孫六。」 注云：「言至子孫，則初時未備也。」 此又顯在緯籍，區別若斯者也。 又晉初，以宣帝是始封之君，應為太祖，而以猶在祖位，故唯祀征西已下六世。 待世世相推，宣帝出居太祖之位，然後七廟乃備。 此又依準前軌，若重規襲矩者也。 竊謂太祖者，功高業大，百世不遷，故親廟之外，特更崇立。 苟無其功，不可獨居正位，而遽見遷毀。 且三世已前，廟及於五； 玄孫已後，祀止於四。 一與一奪，名位莫定，求之典禮，所未前聞。
Investigating the Royal Regulations: feudal lords sacrifice to two zhao and two mu, together with the Grand Ancestor's temple, making five in all. The Lesser Record also says: the king establishes four temples. Zheng Xuan said: "From the High Ancestor down, together with the founding ancestor, making five." This clarifies the standard for establishing temples: kinship sets the limit, and the number does not exceed four. Beyond these, only those with great merit become zong and miao. Thus without a Grand Ancestor one stops at four generations; with a Grand Ancestor one may have five—this is the main text of ritual. Heir of King Wen says: "A descendant of five temples, while the zu temple is not retired, though reduced to commoner status, capping and taking a wife must be reported." Zheng Xuan said: "There are actually four temples but one speaks of five—this allows the High Ancestor to be the son of the first enfeoffed lord." [8] This clarifies that the first enfeoffed lord, standing outside the four generations and occupying the correct position as Grand Ancestor, only then may be called a descendant of five temples. If there is not yet a Grand Ancestor but five generations are already being sacrificed to, then Zheng would have no reason to explain the High Ancestor as the son of the first enfeoffed lord. This is the refined meaning of the former Confucians and clear proof for our own case. The Mourning Garment Tradition also says: "If a grandson of a lord's son is enfeoffed as state ruler, then generation after generation they take this man as ancestor and do not take the lord's son as ancestor." Zheng Xuan said: "This means that later generations who become rulers take this enfeoffed lord as ancestor and may not sacrifice to the separate son. If the lord's son ranks below the High Ancestor, mourning follows the degree of kinship; in later generations he is moved, and only then is his temple destroyed." This clarifies that the first enfeoffment is still within the kin limit, so sacrifice stops at the High Ancestor. It also says that when tablets are moved according to kinship, one especially knows that the High Ancestor's father does not receive a temple. This is again the clear law for establishing temples and corresponds to the present case. The Ritual Apocrypha also says: "Xia had four temples; by descendants, five. Yin had five temples; by descendants, six." The commentary says: "Speaking of descendants means that at first the arrangement was not yet complete." This distinction is again clearly recorded in the apocryphal texts. Also at the beginning of Jin, because Emperor Xuan was the first enfeoffed lord and should have been Grand Ancestor, yet because he still occupied the zu position, they sacrificed only from the Lord of the Campaign West down through six generations. Only after generation upon generation of promotion, when Emperor Xuan moved out to occupy the Grand Ancestor's position, were the seven temples complete. This again follows the former precedent, like overlapping compasses and repeated squares. I venture to say that the Grand Ancestor has lofty merit and great achievement and is not moved for a hundred generations; therefore beyond the kin temples he is specially exalted and established. Without such merit one may not alone occupy the correct position, yet would suddenly be subject to moving and destruction. Moreover, before the third generation, temples may reach five; after the great-great-grandson, sacrifice stops at four. One generation granted a temple and the next denied one—name and position unsettled; seeking this in canonical ritual, it has never been heard of before.
15
今太上秦公，疏爵列土，大啟河山，傳祚無窮，永同帶礪，實有始封之功，方成不遷之廟。 但親在四世之內，名班昭穆之序，雖應為太祖，而尚在禰位，不可遠探高祖之父，以合五者之數。 太祖之室，當須世世相推，親盡之後，乃出居正位，以備五廟之典。 夫循文責實，理貴允當，考創宗祊，得禮為美。 不可苟薦虛名，取榮多數，求之經記，竊謂為允。 又武始侯本無采地，於皇朝制令，名準大夫。 案如禮意，諸侯奪宗，武始四時蒸嘗，宜於秦公之廟。
Now the Supreme Lord Duke of Qin, enfeoffed with noble rank and granted territory, greatly opened rivers and mountains, transmitted the throne without end, secure as girdle and whetstone, truly had the merit of first enfeoffment and is just forming an unmoved temple. But his kinship falls within four generations and his name ranks in the zhao-mu sequence; though he should be Grand Ancestor, he is still in the mi position, and one may not reach back to the High Ancestor's father to make up the number five. The Grand Ancestor's chamber must await generation after generation of promotion; only after kin is exhausted does he move out to the correct position to complete the canon of five temples. Following the text and seeking the fact, principle values what is fitting; in examining the founding of the ancestral shrine, conforming to ritual is what is beautiful. One may not hastily recommend empty names and take glory in a greater number; seeking this in the classics, I venture to say this is fitting. Also the Marquis of Wushi originally had no fief; under the imperial court's regulations his title matches that of a grandee. Investigating according to ritual meaning, when feudal lords seize the lineage, Wushi's four-season offerings should be performed at the Duke of Qin's temple.
16
博士盧觀議：
Erudite Lu Guan argued:
17
案王制：天子七廟，三昭三穆，與太祖之廟而七； 諸侯五廟，二昭二穆，與太祖之廟而五； 大夫三； 士一。 自上已下，降殺以兩，庶人無廟，死為鬼焉。 故曰，尊者統遠，卑者統近。 是以諸侯及太祖，天子及其祖之所自出。 祭法曰：「諸侯立五廟，一壇一墠，曰考廟，曰王考廟，曰皇考廟，皆月祭之。 顯考廟，祖考廟，享嘗乃止。 去祖為壇，去壇為墠，去墠為鬼。」 至於禘祫，方合食太祖之宮。 大傳曰：「別子為祖。」 喪服傳曰：「公子不得禰先君，公孫不得祖諸侯。」 鄭說不得祖禰者，不得立其廟而祭之也； 世世祖是人者，謂世世祖受封之君； 不得祖公子者，後世為君者，祖此受封之君，不得祀別子也； 公子若在高祖以下，則如其親服，後世遷之，乃毀其廟耳。 愚以為遷者，遷於太祖廟，毀者從太祖而毀之。 若不遷太祖，不須發祖是人之文； [9]明非始封，故復見乃毀之節。 何以知之？ 案諸侯有祖考之廟，祭五世之禮。 五禮正祖為輕，一朝頓立。 而祖考之廟，要待六世之君，六世已前，虛而蔑主。 求之聖旨，未為通論。 曾子問曰：「廟無虛主。」 虛主唯四，祖考不與焉。 明太祖之廟，必不空置。
Investigating the Royal Regulations: the Son of Heaven has seven temples—three zhao and three mu, together with the Grand Ancestor's temple, making seven; feudal lords have five temples—two zhao and two mu, together with the Grand Ancestor's temple, making five; grandees, three; knights, one. From the superior down, reduction proceeds by twos; commoners have no temple—when dead they become ghosts. Therefore it is said: the honored unite the distant, the lowly unite the near. Thus for feudal lords sacrifice reaches to the Grand Ancestor; for the Son of Heaven it reaches to the ancestor from whom his ancestor sprang. The Law of Sacrifice says: "Feudal lords establish five temples, one altar and one mound: the temple of the father, the temple of the grandfather, the temple of the great-grandfather—all receive monthly sacrifice. The temple of the distinguished father and the temple of the ancestral father receive offerings only at the seasonal feasts. When the ancestor departs, there is an altar; when the altar departs, there is a mound; when the mound departs, there is a ghost." As for di and conjoining, only then is there shared feasting at the Grand Ancestor's palace. The Great Tradition says: "The separate son becomes ancestor." The Mourning Garment Tradition says: "The lord's son may not take the former ruler as mi; the lord's grandson may not take the feudal lord as zu." Zheng's explanation of "may not take as zu or mi" means one may not establish their temples and sacrifice to them; "generation after generation they take this man as ancestor" means generation after generation they take the enfeoffed lord as ancestor; "may not take the lord's son as ancestor" means that later generations who become rulers take this enfeoffed lord as ancestor and may not sacrifice to the separate son; if the lord's son ranks below the High Ancestor, mourning follows the degree of kinship; in later generations he is moved, and only then is his temple destroyed. I deem that "moved" means moved to the Grand Ancestor's temple, and "destroyed" means destroyed following the Grand Ancestor. If the Grand Ancestor is not moved, there is no need to set forth the text about taking this man as ancestor; [9] this clarifies that it is not first enfeoffment, so one again sees the section on destruction. How does one know this? Investigating the texts: feudal lords have the temple of the ancestral father—the rite of sacrificing to five generations. Among the five ritual ranks the correct ancestor is the lesser case; in one morning it is suddenly established. But the temple of the ancestral father must await the ruler of the sixth generation; before the sixth generation it stands empty and the spirit lord is slighted. Seeking this in the sage's intent, it is not a penetrating argument. Zengzi asked: "A temple has no empty spirit lord." Empty spirit lords number only four; the ancestral father is not among them. This clarifies that the Grand Ancestor's temple must not be left empty.
18
禮緯曰：「夏四廟，至子孫五； 殷五廟，至子孫六； 周六廟，至子孫七。」 見夏無始祖，待禹而五； 殷人郊契，得湯而六； 周有后稷，及文王至武王而七。 言夏即大禹之身，言子謂啟、誦之世，言孫是迭遷之時。 禹為受命，不毀親； 湯為始君，不遷五主； 文武為二祧，亦不去三昭三穆。 三昭三穆謂通文武，若無文武，親不過四。 觀遠祖漢侍中植所說云然，鄭玄、馬昭亦皆同爾。 且天子逆加二祧，得并為七。 諸侯預立太祖，何為不得為五乎？ 今始封君子之立禰廟，頗似成王之於二祧。 孫卿曰：「有天下者事七世，有一國者事五世。」 假使八世，天子乃得事七； 六世，諸侯方通祭五； 推情準理，不其謬乎！ 雖王侯用禮，文節不同，三隅反之，自然昭灼。 且文宣公方為太祖，世居子孫，今立五廟，竊謂為是。 禮緯又云：「諸侯五廟，親四，始祖一。」 明始封之君或上或下，[10]雖未居正室，無廢四祀之親。 小記曰：「王者禘其祖之所自出，以其祖配之，而立四廟。」 此實殷湯時制，不為難也。 聊復摽牓，略引章條。 愚戇不足以待大問。
The Ritual Apocrypha says: "Xia had four temples; by descendants, five; Yin had five temples; by descendants, six; Zhou had six temples; by descendants, seven." This shows Xia had no founding ancestor; awaiting Yu, there were five; the Yin people sacrificed to Qi at the border; obtaining Tang, there were six; Zhou had Hou Ji, and from King Wen to King Wu there were seven. Speaking of Xia means the lifetime of Great Yu; speaking of son means the age of Qi and Zhong Kang; speaking of grandson means the time of successive transfer. Yu received the mandate and did not destroy kin; Tang was the founding ruler and did not move the five lords; Wen and Wu were the two tiao, yet they did not remove the three zhao and three mu. The three zhao and three mu mean extending through Wen and Wu; without Wen and Wu, kin does not exceed four. Examining what the distant ancestor Han Palace Attendant Zhi said, it is so; Zheng Xuan and Ma Zhao also all agree. Moreover, the Son of Heaven retroactively adds two tiao and thereby obtains seven together. If feudal lords pre-establish the Grand Ancestor, why may they not have five? Now the first enfeoffed lord's establishing the mi temple greatly resembles King Cheng's relation to the two tiao. Xunzi said: "One who possesses All-under-Heaven serves seven generations; one who possesses a single state serves five generations." Supposing eight generations, only then may the Son of Heaven serve seven; six generations, and feudal lords only then fully sacrifice to five; weighing sentiment against principle—is it not absurd! Although kings and marquises use ritual and the literary forms differ, inferring from one corner to three, the principle is naturally luminous. Moreover, Duke Wenxuan is just becoming Grand Ancestor, dwelling among descendants for generations; to establish five temples now, I venture to say it is correct. The Ritual Apocrypha also says: "Feudal lords have five temples—four for kin, one for the founding ancestor." This clarifies that the first enfeoffed lord may rank above or below, [10] and though not yet occupying the main chamber, the four sacrifices to kin are not abolished. The Lesser Record says: "The king performs di to the ancestor from whom his ancestor sprang, matching him with his ancestor, and establishes four temples." This was truly the system of the Yin at Tang's time and is not difficult to apply. I shall post this summary once more and briefly cite the relevant articles. My dull wits are hardly fit to bear scrutiny on so weighty a matter.
19
侍中、太傅、清河王懌議：
Palace Attendant-in-Ordinary, Grand Tutor, and Prince of Qinghe Yi argued:
20
太學博士王延業及盧觀等，各率異見。 案禮記王制：「天子七廟，三昭三穆，與太祖之廟而七； 諸侯五廟，二昭二穆，與太祖之廟而五。」 並是後世追論備廟之文，皆非當時據立神位之事也。 良由去聖久遠，經禮殘缺，諸儒注記，典制無因。 雖稽考異聞，引證古誼，然用捨從世，通塞有時，折衷取正，固難詳矣。 今相國、秦公初搆國廟，追立神位，唯當仰祀二昭二穆，上極高曾，四世而已。 何者？ 秦公身是始封之君，將為不遷之祖。 若以功業隆重，越居正室，恐以卑臨尊，亂昭穆也。 如其權立始祖，以備五廟，恐數滿便毀，非禮意也。 昔司馬懿立功於魏，為晉太祖，及至子晉公昭，乃立五廟，亦祀四世，止於高曾。 太祖之位，虛俟宣、文，待其後裔，數滿乃止。 此亦前代之成事，方今所殷鑒也。 又禮緯云：「夏四廟，至子孫五； 殷五廟，至子孫六； 周六廟，至子孫七。」 明知當時太祖之神，仍依昭穆之序，要待子孫，世世相推，然後太祖出居正位耳。 遠稽禮緯諸儒所說，近循晉公之廟故事，宜依博士王延業議，定立四主，親止高曾，且虛太祖之位，以待子孫而備五廟焉。
Erudite of the Imperial Academy Wang Yanye and Lu Guan and others each offered differing views. The Book of Rites, "Royal Regulations," states: "The Son of Heaven has seven temples—three zhao and three mu, which with the Grand Ancestor's temple make seven; feudal lords have five temples—two zhao and two mu, which with the Grand Ancestor's temple make five." These are all texts of later ages retrospectively discussing complete temples; none describe actually establishing spirit seats at the time. Truly because the age has long been far from the sages, the canonical rites are broken and incomplete, and the Ruists' commentaries and records offer no firm basis for institutional norms. One may sift divergent accounts and invoke ancient principles, yet what is kept or cast aside follows the age, and what opens or closes has its season; to strike the mean and fix the right rule is, in the end, hard to settle with certainty. Now that the Chancellor and Duke of Qin are first building the state temple and retroactively establishing spirit seats, sacrifice should look upward only to two zhao and two mu, reaching at most to the High Ancestor and Great-Great-Grandfather—four generations in all. Why is this? The Duke of Qin himself is the first enfeoffed lord and will become the unmoved ancestor. If, because his achievements are weighty, he is placed above in the main chamber, I fear the low will preside over the high and disorder the zhao and mu sequence. If one provisionally establishes the founding ancestor to complete the five temples, I fear that once the number is full they will immediately be retired—this is not the ritual intent. Formerly Sima Yi won merit in Wei and became Grand Ancestor of Jin; only under his son, Duke of Jin Zhao, were five temples established, yet sacrifice still reached four generations, stopping at the High Ancestor and Great-Great-Grandfather. The Grand Ancestor's seat was left vacant awaiting Xuan and Wen; it awaited their descendants, and only when the number was full did the arrangement cease. This too is a settled precedent of former ages—the mirror the present should heed. The Ritual Apocrypha also records: "Xia had four temples; in descendant generations, five; Yin had five temples; by descendants, six; Zhou had six temples; by descendants, seven." This clearly shows that at the time the Grand Ancestor's spirit still followed the zhao and mu order; it had to await descendants, generation after generation advancing, and only then did the Grand Ancestor emerge to occupy the main position. Looking afar to what the Ritual Apocrypha and the Ruists say, and near at hand to the precedent of the Duke of Jin's temple, one should follow Erudite Wang Yanye's proposal: establish four tablet-lords, kin stopping at the High Ancestor and Great-Great-Grandfather, and leave the Grand Ancestor's seat vacant to await descendants and thereby complete the five temples.
21
又延業、盧觀前經詳議，並據許慎、鄭玄之解，謂天子、諸侯作主，大夫及士則無。 意謂此議雖出前儒之事，實未允情禮。 何以言之？ 原夫作主之禮，本以依神，孝子之心，非主莫依。 今銘旌紀柩，設重憑神，祭必有尸，神必有廟，皆所以展事孝敬，想象平存。 [11]上自天子，下逮於士，如此四事，並同其禮。 何至於主，惟謂王侯。 禮云：「重，主道也。」 此為埋重則立主矣。 [12]故王肅曰：「重，未立主之禮也。」 士喪禮亦設重，則士有主明矣。 孔悝反祏，載之左史； 饋食設主，著於逸禮。 大夫及士，既得有廟題紀祖考，何可無主。 公羊傳：「君有事于廟，聞大夫之喪，去樂卒事； 大夫聞君之喪，攝主而往。」 今以為攝主者，攝神斂主而已，不暇待徹祭也。 何休云：「宗人攝行主事而往也。」 意謂不然。 君聞臣喪，尚為之不懌，況臣聞君喪，豈得安然代主終祭也。 又相國立廟，設主依神，主無貴賤，紀座而已。 若位擬諸侯者，則有主，位為大夫者，則無主。 便是三神有主，一位獨闕，求諸情禮，實所未安。 宜通為主，以銘神位。
Moreover, in their earlier detailed deliberations Yanye and Lu Guan both relied on Xu Shen and Zheng Xuan, holding that the Son of Heaven and feudal lords establish tablet-lords, while grandees and common officers do not. I deem that although this view comes from former Ruists, it truly does not accord with sentiment and ritual. How is this to be explained? At root, the rite of making tablet-lords exists to give the spirit a dwelling; in a filial son's heart, nothing else can lodge the spirit. Banners inscribe the coffin, the soul-seat lodges the spirit, sacrifice requires a personator, and the spirit requires a temple—all extend reverent service and filial duty, imagining the dead as though still alive. [11] From the Son of Heaven down to the common officer, in these four matters the ritual is the same. Why, when it comes to tablet-lords alone, is it said to apply only to kings and marquises? The Rites say: "The soul-seat is the way of the tablet-lord." This is because when the soul-seat is buried one then establishes a tablet-lord. [12] Therefore Wang Su said: "The soul-seat is the rite before the tablet-lord is established." The Common Officer Mourning Rites also set up a soul-seat; thus the common officer has a tablet-lord—this is clear. When Kong Kui returned the spirit tablet, it was recorded in the Zuo Tradition; presenting food and establishing a tablet-lord is set forth in the Lost Rites. If grandees and common officers may have temple inscriptions recording ancestors and fathers, how can they lack tablet-lords? The Gongyang Commentary: "When the ruler has business at the temple and hears of a grandee's mourning, he removes music and finishes the affair; when a grandee hears of the ruler's mourning, he takes the acting tablet-lord and goes." Now those who take this to mean "acting tablet-lord" mean one who gathers in the spirit and receives the tablet-lord—there is no leisure to await the concluding sacrifice. He Xiu said: "The lineage officer acts in place of the tablet-lord and goes." I deem this is not so. If even when the ruler hears of a minister's mourning he is displeased, how much less could a minister, hearing of the ruler's mourning, calmly stand in for the tablet-lord and finish the sacrifice? Moreover, when the Chancellor establishes a temple and sets up tablet-lords to lodge the spirits, tablet-lords have no distinction of noble or base—they merely record the seat. If one whose rank matches feudal lords then has a tablet-lord, while one whose rank is grandee then has none, then of the three spirits two have tablet-lords while one seat alone is vacant—sought in sentiment and ritual, this truly is not settled. Tablet-lords should be made universally to inscribe the spirit seats.
22
懌又議曰：「古者七廟，廟堂皆別。 光武已來，異室同堂。 故先朝祀堂令云：『廟皆四栿五架，北廂設坐，東昭西穆。』 是以相國構廟，唯制一室，同祭祖考。 比來諸王立廟者，自任私造，不依公令，或五或一，參差無準。 要須議行新令，然後定其法制。 相國之廟，已造一室，實合朝令。 宜即依此，展其享祀。」 詔依懌議。
Yi also argued: "In antiquity the seven temples each had separate halls. Since Emperor Guangwu, separate chambers have been housed in a single hall. Therefore the former court's temple-sacrifice ordinance said: "Temples are all four purlins and five bays; the north wing sets seats, zhao in the east and mu in the west." Therefore when the Chancellor constructed a temple, he made only one chamber, jointly sacrificing to ancestors and fathers. Princes who in recent times have established temples have done so on private authority, not following the public ordinance—some five chambers, some one, uneven and without standard. It is essential first to deliberate and enact a new ordinance, and only then fix the institutional form. The Chancellor's temple has already built one chamber, which truly accords with the court ordinance. It should at once follow this and extend its offerings." An edict followed Yi's proposal.
23
天平四年四月，七帝神主既遷於太廟，太社石主將遷於社宮。 禮官云應用幣。 中書侍郎裴伯茂時為祖祀文，伯茂據故事，太和中遷社宮，高祖用牲不用幣，遂以奏聞。 于時議者或引大戴禮，遷廟用幣，今遷社宜不殊。 伯茂據尚書召誥，應用牲。 詔遂從之。
In the fourth month of the fourth year of Tianping, once the spirit tablets of the seven emperors had been transferred to the Grand Temple, the stone tablet-lord of the Grand Altars of Soil and Grain was to be moved to the Altars Palace. The ritual officers said silks should be used. Palace Secretariat Gentleman Pei Bomo was at the time drafting the ancestral-sacrifice text; Bomo, relying on precedent, noted that in the Taihe era when the Altars Palace was moved, Emperor Gaozu used victims and not silks, and so submitted a memorial. At the time some in the deliberation cited the Elder Dai's Rites: moving temples uses silks; moving the altars now should not differ. Bomo relied on the Announcement of the Duke of Shao in the Documents, holding that victims should be used. An edict thereupon followed this.
24
武定六年二月，將營齊獻武王廟，議定室數、形制。 兼度支尚書崔昂、司農卿盧元明、祕書監王元景、散騎常侍裴獻伯、國子祭酒李渾、御史中尉陸操、黃門侍郎李騫、中書侍郎陽休之、前南青州刺史鄭伯猷、祕書丞崔劼、國子博士邢峙、國子博士宗惠振、太學博士張毓、太學博士高元壽、國子助教王顯季等議：「案禮，諸侯五廟，太祖及親廟四。 今獻武王始封之君，便是太祖，既通親廟，不容立五室。 且帝王親廟，亦不過四。 今宜四室二間，兩頭各一頰室，夏頭徘徊鵄尾。 又案禮圖，諸侯止開南門，而二王後祔祭儀法，執事列於廟東門之外。 既有東門，明非一門。 獻武禮數既隆，備物殊等。 準據今廟，宜開四門。 內院南面開三門，餘面及外院，四面皆一門。 其內院牆，四面皆架為步廊。 南出夾門，各置一屋，以置禮器及祭服。 內外門牆，並用赭堊。 廟東門道南置齋坊； 道北置二坊，西為典祠廨并厨宰，東為廟長廨并置車輅； 其北為養犧牲之所。」 詔從之。
In the second month of the sixth year of Wuding, when about to build the temple of Prince Xianwu of Qi, they deliberated fixing the number of chambers and the form. Minister of Revenue Cui Ang, Director of the Directorate of Agriculture Lu Yuanming, Director of the Palace Library Wang Yuanjing, Regular Attendant Pei Xianbo, Chancellor of the Directorate of Education Li Hun, Censor-in-Chief Lu Cao, Gentleman of the Yellow Gate Li Qian, Gentleman of the Palace Secretariat Yang Xiuzhi, former Governor of Southern Qing Province Zheng Boyou, Secretariat Assistant Cui Jie, Erudites Xing Zhi and Zong Huizhen, Imperial Academy Erudites Zhang Yu and Gao Yuanshou, Assistant Instructor Wang Xianji, and others jointly argued: "By the Rites, feudal lords keep five temples—the Grand Ancestor and four temples of kin. Now Prince Xianwu is the first enfeoffed lord and is therefore the Grand Ancestor; since kin temples are already included, one cannot establish five chambers. Moreover, even for emperors and kings, temples of kin do not exceed four. Now there should be four chambers in two bays, one flank chamber at each end, with summer-eave pacing and owl-tail finials. Moreover, investigating the Ritual Diagrams, feudal lords open only the south gate; yet in the rites for collateral sacrifice by the two royal successors, the officiants are arrayed outside the temple's east gate. Since there is an east gate, it is clear there is not only one gate. Prince Xianwu's ritual standing is already lofty, and his equipped objects are of special rank. According to the present temple, four gates should be opened. The inner court's south face should open three gates; the remaining faces and the outer court should each have one gate on all four sides. The inner court's walls on all four sides should be bridged as pacing galleries. South of the flanking gates, one building should be set on each side to store ritual vessels and sacrificial garments. Inner and outer gates and walls should all use ochre plaster. South of the temple's east gate road, a fasting lodge should be set; north of the road two lodges should be set: west for the temple-officiant office and kitchen, east for the temple warden's office and for setting out chariots; north of these, the place for raising sacrificial victims." An edict followed this.
25
校勘記
Collation Notes
26
及義有精浮冊府卷五八０ 〈六九五七頁〉 「及」作「析」。 按「析義」與上「持論」為對文，疑「及」字訛。
On the phrase "and in meaning there are refinements and superficialities" — Cefu yuanguan, juan 580 〈page 6957〉 The character for "and" is written as the character for "analyze." Comment: "discerning meaning" forms a parallel with "holding to discussion" above; the character ji is suspected to be corrupt.
27
舉二經於和中按「和中」不詳，疑「淹中」之訛。 漢書卷三０藝文志：「禮古經者出於魯淹中及孔氏。」
On "raising the two classics in Hezhong": Comment — "Hezhong" is unclear; "Yanzhong" is suspected to be the correct reading. The Book of Han, juan 30, "Bibliographic Treatise": "The ancient classic of Ritual came forth from Yanzhong of Lu and the Kong clan."
28
魏明帝以景初三年正月崩至五年正月積二十五晦為大祥通典卷五０禘祫下載孫惠蔚議「五年」作「廢帝正始二年」。 按景初止三年，明年曹芳 〈廢帝〉 改元正始，正始二年正月正得二十五晦。 「五」字疑為「正」字之訛，下脫「始二」二字。
On the passage about Emperor Ming of Wei's mourning: Tongdian, juan 50, "Di and Xia," records Sun Huiwei's proposal with "five years" reading "the second year of Zhengshi under the Deposed Emperor." Comment: The Jingchu era lasted only three years; the next year Cao Fang 〈the Deposed Emperor〉 changed the era name to Zhengshi; in the first month of the second year of Zhengshi it was exactly twenty-five last days of the month. The character "five" is suspected to be a corruption of "correct," with the two characters "shi er" omitted below.
29
升食太祖諸本「升」訛「外」，不可通，今據通典卷五０改。
On "ascend to share food at the Grand Ancestor": in all editions "ascend" is corrupt as "outside," which will not parse; it is now emended according to Tongdian, juan 50.
30
宜待三年終乃後祫禘諸本無「三」字，通典卷五０載崔亮議有。 按若作「年終」， 〈指明年年終，〉 去元恪之死不及二年，與所云「三年乃祫」的歷代禮制不合，豈得謂「準古禮及晉魏之議，并景明故事」？ 知「年」上當脫「三」字，今據補。
On "one should wait until the three years are ended and only then perform di and ti": all editions lack the character "three"; Tongdian, juan 50, records Cui Liang's proposal with it. Comment: If it read "at year's end," 〈meaning at the end of the coming year,〉 From Emperor Wen's death it would be less than two years—this would not accord with successive ritual systems that speak of di only after three years; how could one say "following ancient ritual and the deliberations of Jin and Wei, together with the Jingming precedent"? Thus one knows that "three" should be supplied above "year"; it is now supplied on this authority.
31
鄭玄注云諸本「云」作「大」，冊府卷五八二 〈六九七七頁〉 作「云」。 按若作「大」，當與下「禘郊」連讀，而禮記祭法鄭注原文無「大」字，且於文義亦贅，知是「云」之訛，今據改。
On "Zheng Xuan's commentary says": in all editions "says" reads "great"; Cefu yuanguan, juan 582 〈page 6977〉 reads "says." Comment: If it read "great," it would have to be read continuously with "ti and suburban" below; yet Zheng Xuan's original commentary on the "Methods of Sacrifice" in the Book of Rites has no character "great," and it is also redundant in meaning—thus one knows it is a corruption of "says," and it is now emended accordingly.
32
實四廟言五者容顯考為始封君子故也冊府卷五八二 〈六九七八頁〉 此句作「實四廟孫而言五廟者，容顯考為始封子也」，與今本禮記文王世子合。 然觀下文李琰之議引鄭注與此同，或當時禮記自有別本與今傳本不同，非必脫誤，冊府當據今傳本改。
On the phrase "speaking of five temples when there are in fact four": it accommodates the case where the illustrious forefather is the first enfeoffed lord — Cefu yuanguan, juan 582 〈page 6978〉 This sentence reads: "When speaking of five temples though there are in fact four-temple descendants, it accommodates the illustrious forefather as the first enfeoffed son" — which agrees with the present edition of the "Heir of King Wen" chapter in the Book of Rites. Yet Li Yanzhi's discussion below cites Master Zheng's commentary in the same way, so perhaps the Book of Rites then had a separate edition differing from the present text — not necessarily an omission or error; Cefu yuanguan should have followed the present transmitted text in emending.
33
鄭玄云實四廟而言五廟者容高祖為始封君之子按此引鄭注亦與今傳本不同 〈見上條。〉 「四廟」下無「孫」字，「始封」下有「君」字並與上王僧奇、李琰之議元繼請預祭祀所引鄭注合，但傳本禮記及王、李二議「高祖」並作「顯考」。 原文當作「顯考」，而「顯考廟」即「高祖廟」，當是王延業以意改易，今不改。
Zheng Xuan says: "When speaking of five temples though there are in fact four, it accommodates the high ancestor as the son of the first enfeoffed lord." Comment: this citation of Master Zheng also differs from the present transmitted text. 〈See the entry above.〉 Below "four temples" there is no "grandson"; below "first enfeoffment" there is "lord" — both agreeing with the Zheng commentary cited by Wang Siqi, Li Yanzhi, and Yuan Ji's memorial above; yet in the transmitted Book of Rites and in the Wang and Li discussions "high ancestor" all reads "illustrious forefather." The original text should read "illustrious forefather," and the illustrious forefather temple is the high ancestor temple — this was likely Wang Yanye's intentional alteration; it is not changed now.
34
若不遷太祖不須發祖是人之文諸本「發」作「廢」，冊府卷五八二 〈六九七五頁〉 作「發」。 按這是申說禮「後世為君者祖此受封之君」語，「廢」字與上下文不貫，乃「發」字形近而訛，今據改。
On "if the Grand Ancestor is not moved, there is no need to raise up the ancestor who is this man": in all editions "raise" is written as "abolish" — Cefu yuanguan, juan 582 〈page 6975〉 reads "raise." Comment: this explains the ritual phrase "later generations who become lords take as ancestor this enfeoffed lord"; "abolish" does not fit the context — it is a corruption of "raise" through graphic similarity — and is now emended accordingly.
35
諸侯五廟親四始祖一明始封之君或上或下諸本「四」下無「始祖一明」四字，冊府卷五八二 〈六九七六頁〉 有。 按禮緯稱五廟，始祖廟一加四親廟為五，若無「始祖一」三字，則止四親廟，何云五廟，知是脫文。 又「明始封之君」云云乃盧觀釋禮緯語，無「明」字，則禮緯本文與盧觀語相混。 今皆據補。
On "feudal lords have five temples: four for kin, one for the founding ancestor — clarifying that the first enfeoffed lord may be above or below": in all editions the four characters after "four" are lacking — Cefu yuanguan, juan 582 〈page 6976〉 has them. Comment: the Ritual Apocrypha speaks of five temples — the founding-ancestor temple plus four kin temples make five; without "founding ancestor one," there would be only four kin temples — how could one speak of five temples? Thus text is missing. Further, "clarifying the first enfeoffed lord" and so on are Lu Guan's gloss on the Ritual Apocrypha; without "clarifying," the apocryphal text and Lu Guan's words would be conflated. All are now supplied on this authority.
36
想象平存通典卷四八卿大夫士神主及題板條載此議「平」作「乎」，疑是。
On "imagining the tablet-lord's presence": Tongdian, juan 48, records this proposal with "level" reading as the particle "hu" — this is suspected to be correct.
37
此為埋重則立主矣諸本「埋」作「理」，冊府卷五八二 〈六九七六頁〉 及王先謙魏書校勘記所據宋本作「埋」。 按禮記檀弓四「重，主道也」，鄭注：「始死，未作主，以重主其神也。 重，既虞而埋之，乃復作主。」 「理」乃「埋」形近而訛，今據改。
On "this is because when the mourning weight is buried, a spirit tablet is then set up": in all editions "bury" is written as "reason" — Cefu yuanguan, juan 582 〈page 6976〉 and the Song edition used in Wang Xianqian's Collation Notes to the Book of Wei also reads "bury." Comment: Book of Rites, Tanggong IV: "The weight — the way of the spirit tablet"; Zheng's commentary: "At first death, before a tablet is made, the weight stands in for the spirit. The weight, once the yu rite is performed, is buried, and only then is the tablet made again." Reason" is a corruption of "bury" through graphic similarity — it is now emended accordingly.