ArticlePDF Available

The Ritual Formation of Confucian Orthodoxy and the Descendants of the Sage

Authors:

Abstract

Thomas A. Wilson looks at the contested nature of the Confucian orthodoxy in China by "focusing on the uneasy convergence of the state cult of Kongzi [Confucius) ... with the family cult of his flesh-and-blood descendants" from the fifteenth to the early seventeenth centuries. Rather than trace the development of orthodoxy through the canonization of a 'sacred' literature, he concentrates on unravelling the ritual formation of orthodoxy as manifested through rituals performed at the state Kong temples. These rituals varied between those enacted by representatives of the throne at the imperial Kong temples and those carried out by Confucius's descendants at the Kong temple of Qufu, Shandong, Kongzi's birthplace. These differences were articulated in debates between those who advocated the familization of the worship of Confucius and those who emphasized the reverence of the Dao of the master rather than the cult of the family. The author shows that the ritual centered on the Kong family and lineage was critical in legitimating imperial Confucian orthodoxy during the Ming dynasty.
The Ritual Formation of Confucian Orthodoxy and the Descendants of the Sage
Author(s): Thomas A. Wilson
Source:
The Journal of Asian Studies,
Vol. 55, No. 3 (Aug., 1996), pp. 559-584
Published by: Association for Asian Studies
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2646446 .
Accessed: 21/02/2011 12:34
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=afas. .
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Association for Asian Studies is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The
Journal of Asian Studies.
http://www.jstor.org
The
Ritual Formation of
Confucian
Orthodoxy
and the
Descendants of the Sage
THOMAS
A.
WILSON
Teacher and paragon of the ten
thousand generations'
Since the birth of
people, there
has
been no one such
as
Kongzi2
This essay explores the ritual dimension of the formation of Confucian
orthodoxy
in China from around the
fifteenth
to the
early
seventeenth
centuries. Recent
scholarship
on
orthodoxy
has
shown how
the
civil service examination
system
bound
together hundreds of thousands of
educated men
with the
court
in
pedagogical
practices
that
effectively regulated what constituted
acceptable
knowledge
of the
classics used to legitimate the
imperial regime
and its
policies.3
Without
questioning
the
central importance of the
examinations
in
the propagation of
orthodoxy,
in
this
essay
I
expand
the
scope
of this
problem
to
consider
the role
of
ritual
in
reproducing
orthodoxy by focusing
on
the
uneasy convergence
of
the
state cult of
Kongzi-known
in
the West as
Confucius-with
the
family
cult of his flesh-and-blood descendants.4
This
convergence hinges
on what I
believe
is an
ambiguity
in the
ritual functions
of
imperial temples
where
representatives of
the
throne performed sacrifices to
Kongzi
and his
disciples,
and
the
temple located
in
Qufu, Shandong, where
Kongzi's
descendants
performed
sacrifices to his
spirit. Although
these
temples
were
Thomas A. Wilson is associate
professor of history at Hamilton College. This essay is
based on
a
paper presented
at
the 1995
annual meeting of the Association for Asian Studies
in
Washington D.C. The author is
grateful for comments from Abigail Lamberton, Julia K.
Murray, Susan Naquin, Jun Jing, Anne
Birdwhistell, John Henderson, Maureen Miller, and
two anonymous readers forJAS.
'This epitaph (Wanshi shibiao),
written in the Kangxi emperor's hand, is on
a
placard over
the main door of the Hall of Great
Completion (Dacheng dian) in the Beijing Kong temple.
2This epitaph-which is an elliptical
rendering of Mengzi
2A.2 that
reads [zi
you]
shengmin
[yilail
weiyou [Kongzij-appears over the main entrance to the
Dacheng
dian in
the
Quzhou,
Zhejiang, Kong temple and directly over
Kongzi's spirit tablet
in
the
main hall
of
the
Beijing
temple.
3Elman
1994, 123-33. Bol (1992a)
distinguishes
between
Wang
Anshi's
imposition
of
an orthodoxy from above and the ground
swell of support for Daoxue
in
the Yuan dynasty.
4Confucius is
a
latinized transliteration of his honorific
name
"Kong
Fuzi"
(Master Kong),
a
term which Jensen (1993, 427-40)
argues Jesuits manufactured as part of their accommo-
dationist
strategy to elevate the Ru
tradition above what they took to be its native competitors,
Buddhism
and
Daoism.
The Journal
of Asian Studies
55,
no.
3 (August 1996):559-584.
C) 1996 by the
Association for Asian Studies, Inc.
559
560
THOMAS A.
WILSON
geographically
and
administratively distinct, they
were not
nominally
distinguished
in ritual
texts; they were
both called
Kong temples
(Kongmiao).5 Beginning as
early
as the fifteenth
century, officially
performed
rites
in the
imperial temple
amounted to
a hybrid ritual in
which the
state
and
family
cult
functions were
fused, though
never
entirely
reconciled; they
converged
as
a
set of
heterogeneous
ritual
practices
which
was
never
quite homogenized
despite attempts
to
do so
in
the sixteenth
century.
Contested
Orthodoxies
Confucian
orthodoxy
of
late
imperial
China
was
at
once
a
much-contested
normative
claim asserted by
contending
sects
that
a
particular
body
of
teachings
and
texts was both
doctrinally
unified
(tong)
and
universally
valid because it
correctly
(zheng)
articulated the ancient
Dao.
Despite
the
appearance
of
permanence,
any
orthodoxy
is
necessarily
momentary,
an
expression
of
one
particular
sectarian claim
among other
competing
claims
to
exclusive
possession
of the
Truth. There can be no
objective
standard
by
which to
weigh
the
veracity
of these
claims,
for
in
the annals
of
Confucian
orthodoxies one condemned
by
the
court
as a
"heretic"
may
later be
enshrined
in
the
Kong temple
as a
sage.
The
Ming
(1368-1644)
court elevated
Cheng-
Zhu
learning
to the status
of
state
orthodoxy, despite
the
Song (960-1279)
court's
(albeit
temporary)
condemnation
of
Cheng
Yi's
(1033-1107) learning
as
spurious
in
1104
and
condemnation
of Zhu Xi
(1130-1200)
in
1195 (Hartwell 1971,
715-16;
Schirokauer
1975, 189-91).
Contrariwise, Wang
Yangming's (1472-1529)
sectarian
claim
in
the
15
10s
that
Lu
Xiangshan
(1139-93) apprehended
the true
Dao was made
from
a
position
of
substantially diminished
power
and
authority. While the
court
promulgated
its
claim
through
a
standardized
curriculum of the
civil service
examination-the
primary
basis
of
recruitment into the
bureaucracy-Wang
Yangming made his claim
during
a
time of
considerable
literati
and
official
disfavor.6
I
have
argued
that
state
orthodoxy
needs to
be contextualized within
sectarian
contestation over the doctrinal
content
of the
Dao-particularly
between the
Cheng-
Zhu school and its
critics-which informed and
shaped court
decisions on
orthodoxies
(Wilson
1995, chap. 1).
The
court's
version
of
orthodoxy
is
distinguishable from
those
of
the
various sects
by
the
imperial
edicts,
institutional
acts,
curricular and
liturgical
revisions that
shaped it,
rather than
by any disagreement
over the
possibility of
redacting
the Dao's
meaning
in
concise doctrines and the
desirability of
canonizing
them within
an
official
ideological
apparatus.7
In
using
the Western term
orthodoxy
to refer to sectarian
claims to the
Confucian
Dao,
I
am
suggesting
certain
parallels
with the formation
of
orthodoxy
in the
West
5This temple is also
commonly called
the Culture temple
(wenmiao). Tang-Song
sources
also
use
a
number of other
names,
such as the
temple of the Master
(Fuzimiao) and
Propagating
Sage
(Xuansheng miao);
and later
Former
Teacher
(Xianshi miao)
and
Supreme Sage,
Former
Teacher, Master Kong
(Zhisheng xianshi Kongzi
miao).
6Wang Yangming
(jinshi 1499)
and
many
of his most
prominent
disciples succeeded
in
obtaining
the
highest
examination
degree,
although
it
is
not
clear that
they explicitly contra-
dicted Zhu Xi's views in their
examination
essays; Wang admitted
that he
based his
essays on
Zhu
Xi's commentaries (Wilson
1995, 299
n.
12).
7Faith
that
the Dao
was reducible to doctrines
was not
universally accepted. Su Shi
(1037-
1101) and Lu Xiangshan
resisted such
efforts by their
contemporaries (Bol 1992b,
263-65;
Wilson
1995, 97-111).
THE RITUAL FORMATION
OF CONFUCIAN ORTHODOXY 561
while admitting
their
many fundamental historical
differences.8 In Christianity, for
example, orthodoxy
was determined
by
the Pope or a council of bishops whose
pronouncements were accepted as canonical
because, it was believed, their words were
inspired by God. The faith that the source
of Church dogma comes from God and
the existence of a politically independent
ecclesiastical authority differ from the
production of orthodoxy
in
imperial China,
where the Dao was believed to have been
transmitted from human sage-kings of remote
antiquity as recorded in the classics,
and the
emperor
in
theory presided
over literati debates at court on enshrinement
(congsi)
of Confucians in the
Kong temple.
Yet the process by which orthodoxy
was
enunciated did
not remain the
same either
in
the Christian Church or
China. The
Church's relationship with secular authority
changed considerably from the council
of
Nicaea
of
325,
when the
distinction between
secular and ecclesiastical authority
was not
clearly defined,
to
the emergence of
an independent papal authority in twelfth-
or
thirteenth-century
Rome. Given these changes, any study of orthodoxy must take
into account the variable circumstances and
contested procedures of its construction
as well as its
actual content.
In
this essay
I
construe orthodoxy to signify not
a
specifiable dogma or
set of
doctrines presumed
to articulate the Truth, but rather an
interplay among the bureaucratic sites in which
competing definitions of
the Truth are
negotiated, the ideological
justifications
for such
institutional pronouncements,
and the
cultural
and
ritual
practices
that
reproduce
and
propagate
them.
State
orthodoxy
in
late
imperial
China
did
not
embrace
a
wide
range
of Confucian
schools,
but was based on the
narrowly
sectarian
rendering
of Zhu Xi's
interpretation
of the Confucian tradition that became
prevalent
in Dao School circles
during
the
thirteenth
century.
As I
have argued elsewhere
(Wilson 1995, 73-97),
Dao
School
proponents articulated their understanding
of Truth as a doctrinal lineage, or Daotong,
on the basis
of an
exclusionary genealogical
principle
of the
patriline
which
validated
their
assertion
that
only
the
few Northern Song
masters they
claimed as
their doctrinal
progenitors
received and
faithfully
transmitted the ancient Dao. Zhu Xi, they averred,
was
the
sole
heir to
this
Dao,
which he
expressed
in
his
writings
and classical
commentaries;
an
oeuvre that became the
core
of the civil service
examination
curriculum as
early
as the Yuan
dynasty
(1234-1368).
The
trope
of the
Dao's
patrilineal descent
from
the sages to Zhu
Xi further naturalized the Dao School
contention that some of the
Cheng
brothers' prominent disciples
were
excluded from
this
lineage
because
they allegedly corrupted
the Dao by secreting
Buddhism into the
true
teachings.
This served to hermetically seal off
Dao
School
doctrines
from
surrounding ideas;
to
isolate
the
origins
of the school's
tradition
in
the
purity
of the
canonical words
of the ancient
sages by
consistently denying any dialogic
encounter
with non-Confucian
masters,
or
concealing
any
evidence
of
contact
with
potentially
heretical
teachings (Wilson 1995, 197-227).
The
Dao School's rise to
hegemony
within
the
larger
cultural domain
of
Confucianism was attended
by
a
shift from the Five Classics to
another set of canonical
texts, eventually
called the
Four
Books. Zhu Xi was
probably
the first to
group
them
together
in
his critical edition
called the Collected Commentaries
on the Four Books
(Sishu
jizhu), although
it
is
difficult to
ascertain
when
they
were
officially
canonized.
After
Li
Daochuan
(1170-1217) requested
in 1211 that
the
court
lift
its
ban on
"spurious
learning,"
aimed
primarily
at
Dao School
learning,
and
promote
Zhu's commentaries
on
the Four
Books in the
Imperial
University,
the
emperor
lifted the
ban without
8Sinological use of the
term
orthodoxy is pervasive
and can be exceptionally vague
and
contradictory, as Peterson (1993)
demonstrates.
562
THOMAS
A. WILSON
actually giving sole
endorsement to Zhu Xi's commentaries, although he made them
available
in
state schools (Li
Xinchuan
1239, 8.6b-lOa; Toghto t13451 1977,
429.12769; Bi
[18011
1957,
159.4316). With
the
reestablishment of the state
examinations
in
1315 after more
than
a
seventy-five year hiatus, questions
on
the
Four Books were asked in the
examinations, effectively giving
them
canonical status.
The early Ming
court relied
heavily
on Dao School commentaries of
the
Yuan era
in
compiling
its
official editions of
the
canon
in the Great Collection on
the
Five
Classics
and Four Books
(Wujing
Sishu
daquan),
as well
as
officially approved postclassical
writings
in
the Great Collection
on Nature
and
Principle
(Xingli daquan) completed
in
1415.
In
order for the canon to
be propagated across the empire
and
perpetuated
over
time, rules governing
reading practices
are
necessary;
the canon needs to be
controlled.9 Writing
on the Biblical
canon,
Frank
Kermode remarks
that
"once
a work
becomes canonical
the
work
of the
interpreter begins again.
For
example,
so
long
as
the institution, assuming
inerrancy, desires to
minimize the
contradictions and
redundancies of the gospels,
a main
object of interpretation must be
the
achievement
of
harmony-'the concord
of the
canonical
scriptures,'
as
Augustine proclaims
it in
The City of God" (Kermode
1979, 77-78). Wang Yangming's
vain
attempt
in
1518
to promote
a
Han edition of the Great
Learning
which conflicted
on
several
key points
with
Zhu Xi's revised version used
in the examinations illustrates
the
difficulty
in
resisting official reading regimes. This incident also demonstrates
that
the
formation
of
restrictive
rules
on how
to read canonical texts did not
preclude
the
emergence
of
other-anticanonical-readings
that
conflicted with the
existing reading regimes.
Indeed,
the
very
existence of
increasingly
inflexible
interpretations
of
the
classics
often
provoked resistance from
independent
thinkers like
Wang Yangming.
Yet
Wang's
numerous followers, who
propagated teachings
that
contradicted
Cheng-Zhu
orthodoxy, were exceptions
to an
otherwise
compliant
literati concerned more with
passing
the
examinations
and
assisting
the
emperor govern
the realm than
pursuing
the
exhaustive investigation
of
principle
to the
very depths
of human nature.
Controlling
the canon also entails
pedagogical
institutions such as local state
schools
and
privately
run academies
(shuyuan)
to
regulate
and
oversee
reading regimes.
Education
officials,
whose low
bureaucratic
rank belied their
actual clout, played
a
ubiquitous
role
in
local education
because
they represented
the interests of
the
throne
and
were
answerable
only
to
the
emperor.
The
way
the canon
was
read and
used
in
literati culture
was
profoundly shaped by
the
entire examination
system,
with its
multi-tiered
hierarchy
of examination
degrees
that determined one's credentials for
bureaucratic
appointment,
and
the examination
curriculum
that,
in
Ming-Qing times,
was based on the Great Collections of
commentaries
on the classics and
Song
Confucian
writings,
which were
published
by
the Directorate
of
Education
and
distributed to
local and
regional
schools.
What is
striking
about Confucian education
in
Ming-Qing
times, and, indeed,
about
literati
culture
generally,
was that
with official
promulgation
of these
collectanea, Cheng-Zhu
learning
became
self-regulating,
at
the
very
least
because
its
version of
the
canon
was the most
widely
available. With several
important
9In his comparison of canon formation in Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Confucianism,
Henderson (1991) defines the formation of canons broadly, as the "identification and stabili-
zation of
a
body of classical or sacred texts that is declared to be authoritative." Canonization
necessarily privileges a specific set of texts and commentaries among other formally similar
texts through hierarchy, by attributing greater verity to certain texts than to others which
make similar claims (e.g., the Zuo version of the Chunqiu versus the Gongyang version), or by
outright
exclusion
(e.g., the Mengzi versus
the Xunzi
beginning
in the
Yuan).
THE
RITUAL FORMATION OF
CONFUCIAN
ORTHODOXY 563
exceptions,
even
private
academies in the
Ming largely
served the throne's
need for
preparing examination
candidates who were
well-versed in the
nature and principle
curriculum, obviating
the need for overt
manipulation
of institutional
controls over
reading practices.
The
Ritual Formation
of Orthodoxy
Canonizing
orthodoxies is
not
exclusively
a matter
of
privileging
certain
books
as
sacred, delimiting
correct teachings,
and
specifying
a
reading
regime. Confucian
orthodoxy was also
reproduced
in
rituals
performed
in
such official
domains as
the
state
Kong temple,
or
Kongmiao.
Often
infelicitously translated as
"Confucian
temple," Kongmiao means
the temple of
Kongzi, thus I translate
it
as Kong temple.
Although the literati
tradition that largely
grew out of Kongzi's
teachings is not
typically referred to
in
Chinese by a derivation
of his
name-rather, it is generally
called Ru
learning
(Ruxue)-the temple
that
honored
this
tradition was almost never
called
a
Rumiao.
This
temple
was also called
Wenmiao-Culture
temple-because
Kongzi
had
held the
title of Culture
Propagating King (wenxuan
wang)
since
739
(Kaiyuan 27/8/24) as well
as to distinguish it from the
military
temple called Taigong
temple,
which
honored
Taigong Wang, who led the
Zhou's conquest
of Shang.10 Qu
Jiusi
(juren 1573), a late
Ming authority on
the temple, points out that the
term
Culture
temple
ceased to
be
necessary
after the termination of the
Taigong temple
in
the
early Ming dynasty11 and of
Kongzi's
title of
Culture
Propagating King
in
1530,
although
in
practice
Wenmiao and
Kongmiao
have been
used
interchangeably
ever
since.
12
The
Ming
regulations prescribe
a vast
hierarchy
of
rituals
performed
at
Kong
temples
at
every
level of the
empire
observed
by
a
wide
range
of
degree holders,
candidates,
and
schoolboys.
In
the
imperial
temple
in the
capital,
senior
officials
of
the
Directorate of Education
offered oblations
(shidian) to the spirit of
Kongzi twice
'0Ouyang
[10601
1975, 15.375-76.
Taigong Wang (whose
name was
Lii
Shang)
was of
barbarian
descent who left the service of
King Jie, the last Shang
ruler, and traveled among
the various
feudal lords until he met
Earl of the Western Zhou, later
known as King Wen.
Lii
Shang
later advised the first two
Zhou kings (Sima Qian [87
B.C.]
1962, 32.1477-81).
The
Taigong temple was also known as
Wu-Cheng wangmiao and
Taigong Shangfu miao.
The
military temple was established in
731 (Kaiyuan 19/4/18) and,
following the regulations
on
rites
and
music used
in
the Culture
temple, enshrined
eminent
generals
as correlates
(Ou-
yang
[10601
1975, 15.377; Du n.d.,
53.306). Sima Guang
([10671
1956, 213.6795-96)
criticized
the founding of this temple
because
"from
ancient
times there has never
been
a
sage
who was
not capable of ordering Heaven
and
Earth
with culture
and
pacifying disaster
and
chaos
with
the
art
of warfare.
.
.
.
'A
brave ruler without righteousness
brings chaos' [Analects
17.231,
if
he is instructed solely on the
basis of prowess without making
him
understand
rites
and
righteousness, then there is nothing
he might not do."
"Ming
Taizu (r. 1368-98) terminated these sacrifices
(probably
in
1388) because,
he
said,
they
erroneously divided military arts
(wu) from culture (wen), and
proclaimed
that
Taigong
should receive
sacrifices
in the
Shrine for
Emperors
and
Kings
(Ji
1783, 54.1458). By Qing
times the
Guandi cult evidently replaced
that of Taigong, although,
due to the former's lack
of
classical
provenance,
it is not
clear
that
the Guandi temple regained
a
status
equivalent to
Taigong's.
Although Guan Yui was
ennobled as duke as early as 1102
and deified in 1590,
the sources
suggest
that
he was not given
a ritual status equal to Kongzi's
until 1725 (Zhao
[19271
1985, 84.2541).
'2Qu
1609, 2.30b-3
lb.
It
is
tempting
to insinuate
a
distinction
in
temple
nomenclature,
but
there is no
consistently observed
distinction between these terms
in the
Chinese sources.
564
THOMAS
A. WILSON
a
year
in the
spring
and autumn
(see appendix
for a
summary of this liturgy). The
emperor
and
high court ministers
above the sixth rank
observed these rites, while
ministers
at the sixth rank and
below
observed rites "from afar"
the day before, and
all other
degree
holders were instructed
to offer
lesser
vegetable
sacrifices
(shicai)
without
accompanying
dance or music
as
described
in the
Book
of Rites (Liji zhengyi
8.1406;
Li
and Shen
[15871
1976, 91.28b).
The ritual
dancers and musicians were
chosen from among
students
at
the
Imperial University
and sons
of
eminent
officials
and military officers.
Later
they
were recruited
from
the Court of
Imperial Sacrifices
(Li and Shen
[15871
1976, 91.28b).
The
district
magistrate performed these rites
in
local temples, where, according
to
Qing statutes,
dancers were selected from
students
at local state schools (Kun 1899, 32.271).
Confucian
orthodoxy
was embodied
in the
conduct
of
the literati
through
its
ritualization
in state
temples.
As
meticulously scripted liturgies
based on
principles
formally
debated
at
court,
the
performance
of these
sacrifices
articulate, through
prescribed bodily gestures,
the substantive doctrines
that
constitute state
orthodoxy.
The
physical
reverential
posturings
of
obeisance
by
these
mindful
ritual bodies in
the
presence
of the
spirit
tablets
of the
sages
do not
merely
confirm
previously determined
ideas
(Rawski 1988, 20-34;
Zito
1993, 321-48), for,
in
performing sacrifices, the
participants
invoke the doctrines
taught by
those enshrined
in
the
temple, thereby
ritually enacting
and
generating
the court's
conception
of
orthodoxy
as
signified by
the hierarchical
ordering
of the
spirit
tablets
in the
temple. By embodying orthodoxy
through
these
rites,
the
participants
are
gradually, perhaps haltingly, disciplined by
them; their ritualized bodies,
which
have internalized the
teachings
that constitute
orthodoxy by subordinating
themselves to
them,
also
reinscribe
orthodoxy
in their
ritual
conduct
both
in
and outside
of the
temple (drawing
from Bell
1992, 98-100).
Even
those
present
who do not
fully
endorse the court's
position
on
orthodoxy may
inadvertently
contribute
to
its
reproduction by paying
obeisance
to it.
Because only
state-school students and
examination-degree holders were
permitted
to observe or
participate
in the local
rites,
the
Kong temple
was
ritually
demarcated
from
all
other
temple cults,
which solidified the
Confucian
gentry
as a
community
that was
culturally marked,
in
part, by mastery
of the
classical
language
of the
sages.
Since
the
Tang dynasty, Kong temple
rites hierarchized the Ru tradition
by ranking
all
persons
enshrined
on
the basis of noble titles:
Kongzi
was called
Culture
Propagating King,
a
small
number
of
prominent
followers
were ennobled as dukes
(gong), Kongzi's personal disciples
were
ranked
as
marquises (hou),
and the
Han-Tang
canonical
exegetes
as
earls
(bo),
with some
exceptions
and variations
(see
Wilson
1995,
40-47, 55-59). By
the
time
of the
Southern
Song,
when the
ranking
of
sage (sheng),
correlate
(pei),
savant
(zhe), worthy (xian),
and
scholar
(ru)
was
fully integrated
into
the
temple regulations,
a
person's
noble
ranking did
not
necessarily
affect his ritual
status
in the
temple hierarchy.
Before the
Jiajing
reforms
of
1530,
each
person
was
represented
in
the
temple by
a
sculpted spirit image.
The
images
of
the
Sage,
his
correlates,
and the savants were
placed
in
the main hall at
the center of the
temple
complex,
whereas
all others were
physically separated
in the
cloisters
running along
the eastern
and western
periphery
of
the
main hall. The
meaning
of the
sacrifices
changed
each
time someone new was
enshrined,
since the addition of
a
new
spirit
image required
a
physical
and ritual
readjustment
of the
spirit
tablets of
all
others
already
in
the
temple (see
Wilson
1995, 40-51).
One of the clearest
examples
of
the
sectarian nature of this
temple hierarchy
is
the enshrinement of
Mengzi (aka Mencius)
and
Xunzi
during
the
Song.
In
1083,
Mengzi was ennobled as duke and enshrined as a correlate, whereas Xunzi
was
THE
RITUAL
FORMATION OF
CONFUCIAN ORTHODOXY
565
ennobled as earl
and enshrined
as a worthy (Toghto
[13451
1977, 105.2549; Ma
1322,
31.294). The hierarchy marked
by
the
physical separation
of
the main hall from
the side
cloisters was
subsequently deployed repeatedly in
debates about ritual status.
In
1267
(Xianchun 3/1/20) Kongzi's
disciple Zeng Can
(aka Zengzi)-reputed
author
of the Great
Learning-and grandson
Kong
Ji
(aka
Zisi)-author
of the
Doctrine of
the
Mean-were elevated to the status
of correlate. The
accelerated succession of Mengzi's
admission
into the
temple and
subsequent promotion
of
Zeng
Can
and Kong
Ji
into
the
Master's inner hall, past the ten
savants to compose
the group of four
correlates,
was
an
integral part
of the canonical shift
away
from the
Five
Classics to the
Four
Books.
At
least half a
century
before the Four Books
were
a
required part of
the
examination
curriculum, the authors of these
texts-the core of the Dao School
curriculum-were enshrined at the
highest
level
of the ritual
hierarchy.
The assertion
of Dao School dominance
over other sects
in
the
temple
culminated
in
1642, when
six
Song
masters of this
school were
promoted from the status of
scholar,
located
toward
the south and
subordinate end of the
cloisters, to worthy,
immediately
following
Kongzi's
direct
disciples
and
before
the
Han erudites
who
lived a
thousand
years
before, overturning
a
long-standing principle of
chronological sequence
to
determine
the
ordering
of
the worthies and scholars
in
the
cloisters
(Zhang
[17391
1974,
50.1301).
Familizing
the Rites of
Orthodoxy
From the
early
decades of the
Ming dynasty scholars like
Song
Lian
(1310-81)13
and
Qiu
Jun (1421-95)
had
called
for
the removal of the noble titles of
persons
enshrined
in the
temple
to eliminate
the dual
system
of
ranking. During
the wide-
ranging
temple reforms of the
Jiajing
era
(r. 1521-66), grand
secretary Zhang
Cong
(1475-1539)
met
strident resistance from
many court
ministers
after he
announced
his intention to
remove Kongzi's
title of king, which
required a concomitant reduction
of the ceremonial level
of the
temple
rites and music
from the
imperial eight
rows of
dancers to six.'4
Zhang Cong relied
heavily
on the
writings
of
Song
Lian
and Qiu Jun
to articulate his
argument. Deborah
Sommer aptly characterizes
Qiu Jun's position
on
temple
liturgy
as
an
iconoclastic
campaign
to
destroy
the
sculptural representations
of
Kongzi
and the others
enshrined
in
the
temple
as
physical objects
intended to
receive ritual
offerings.
According
to
Sommer, Qiu Jun
argued
that the use of
representational
images
as
vessels
for
the
spirit
in
the
temple
was
a
Buddhist
practice
that
would
denigrate
Ru
learning and profane the invisible
realm
in
which
the
numinal
spirits
dwelt. He
also
maintained that these
statues could
not
possibly
actually
look
like
Kongzi
because
they
were all different
(1994, 2, 11). Qiu's emphasis
on a
spirit
image's physical
resemblance to the deceased's
original appearance
draws
from the
use of
spirit images
in
ancient ancestral
sacrifice
as a
seminal
link
between
"3For
example, Song 1781,
28.11a; Zhang
[17391
1974,
128.3785; Long 1963,
11.174;
Wilson
1995,
55-57.
"Li and
Shen
[15871
1976,
91.28b.
In 1476
(Chenghua 12/9)
Libationer Zhou
Hongmu
(1419-91)
requested an increase in
dance, music,
and offerings to
the level extended
to em-
perors, for,
he
said, "changing
noble rank and
adding
ritual utensils do not affect
Kongzi's
status"
(Ji
1787, 48.3229). In
1496 (Hongzhi
9/2) the number of
ritual dancers
at
the Kong
temple
sacrifices was increased
to 72, thereby
elevating it to the
statutes governing
the son of
heaven (Xia
1968, 38.1448).
566
THOMAS A. WILSON
the deceased and the sacrificer. Personators,
played by the deceased's paternal
grandson, were frequently used in ancestral
sacrifice because their physical likeness
was believed
to
express
an actual
spiritual
or seminal connection
by
means of
a
shared
vital force. Chen Chun (1159-1223) said,
"'The
ancestors' seminal
spirit
tjingshenj
is
one's own spirit.' Therefore
if
descendants
can extend
their
sincerity
and reverence to
the utmost, their own seminal spirit
will
be
concentrated
and their
ancestors' spirit
will
also become
concentrated
and come to reach
their
sacrifice
of
its
own
accord."''5
The resemblance of the sculpted image (or
personator)
to
the
deceased established
a
medium connecting
the
spirit
of the
deceased
with that
of
the
sacrificer
through
the
accumulation
of
a
common
vital force shared
by
all male
members
of
a
patriline.
Having
seen the resemblance
in the
image
or
personator,
the
sacrificer
is
able to
envision
the
physical person
of the
deceased
as
though
he sat before
him, and,
as the
Book of Rites says,
"will
sigh
as he
seems to hear the sound of
the
spirit sigh."'16
Qiu Jun evidently never explicitly
states
that the
spirit images should be removed
from state
Kong temples
because
they
cannot
serve
as spirit
mediums when the
Libationer who performs
the
sacrifices
is not
a
family descendant of Kongzi.17 Qiu
Jun
nonetheless
opposes
the
hybridization
of
Kong temple
rites
when
he declines to
endorse
an
analogy
with ancestral
rites or the
suggestion
that
the state's sacrifice to
Kongzi
is
an
instance of ancestral
sacrifice,
and thus refocuses the
purpose
of the state
temple away
from the flesh-and-blood
man
Kongzi
to
his Dao.
Qiu Jun's rejection
of
analogies
that fused
the
state cult
with ancestral
worship
was an
important part
of
a
general though perhaps dissenting critique
of the
familizing hybridization
of rites in
the official Kong temple. Not
all critics were as fixed
as
Qiu Jun
on the
repudiation
of
heterodoxies,
but
they
tended to show
a
concern
that the
purpose
for these rites
was
somehow undermined
by distracting
attention
away
from the
reason
why Kongzi
was
indubitably
the
"teacher
of the ten thousand
generations,"
for
it
was not the flesh-
and-blood
man
who was the
object
of
reverence,
but
the
Dao
that he transmitted from
the sage-rulers before him.
This flesh-and-blood Kongzi was, however,
the object of sacrifices performed by
his
family
descendants in the
Kong temple
in
Qufu, Shandong, Kongzi's birthplace.
The
Kong
ancestral cult was to a certain
extent
similar to
those
of other
lineage
organizations throughout
China:
the court issued
regulations
on
the
type
of
ceremonies
and
offerings appropriate
for
different social statuses,
and
individual
lineage organizations developed
their own ritual practices in accordance with the
official
registry
of
sacrifices
(Taylor 1990,
134-35).
The
Kongs
of
Qufu,
like other
cults,
maintained
an
ancestral hall
(/iamiao),
a
cemetery,
and
agricultural
land
to
support
maintenance of the ancestral hall and
purchase
of sacrificial
offerings (Hu
1948, 31-37, 64-90).
The
Kongs
differed from other
lineages, however, because
the
"5Chen Chun 1883,
B.331a-b;
Chen Chun
1986,149-50;
Sommer
1994,
11.
Ebrey (1991,
62) notes Song Confucians' concern that a portrait's
inaccuracy might cause one
to
offer
sac-
rifices to the wrong spirit. See also Zhu [1
1751
1968,
181; Chen Chun 1986, 149-56;
Waltner
1990, 28-47, 64-71; Ebrey 1991, 21-23, chap. 3.
16"The Meaning of Sacrifices," Book
of
Rites,
211;
Liji
zhengyi 1980, 21.1592; Sommer
1994, 11. Ebrey (1991, 207) notes
a
similar "confusion"
of ancestral rites and sacrificing
to
gods.
In
this light, Kongzi's admonition
to "sacrifice as if the spirits were present" (Lunyu
3.12) suggests both the intimacy of the connection
between spirit and sacrificer as well as the
need to handle ritual vessels as though actually offering
food
and
drink to someone who
is
physically present.
'7The Book of Rites states,
"To
perform sacrifices
one ought not perform is a licentious
rite." Liji zhengyi 5, 1268. This is Kongzi's implication
when he says "to sacrifice to spirits
that
are not one's
own is
flattery" (Lunyu 2.24).
THE RITUAL
FORMATION
OF
CONFUCIAN
ORTHODOXY
567
throne granted Kongzi's living descendants
a
hereditary noble
title-since 1055
this
title was Duke for Fulfilling the Sage (Yansheng gong)-and a
fiefdom with serfs.
18
The
most basic difference between
the
Qufu Kong's
ancestral
cult
and
that
of
every
other
lineage, except perhaps the imperial lineage, was its ties to
an
ideological apparatus
of the state
symbolized by
the
Kong temple,
where
the
spirit
images
of
Kongzi
and
his doctrinal heirs received oblations from the Duke for
Fulfilling
the
Sage.
The
politicization
of the
Kong
ancestral
cult
began
as
early
as
195
B.C., when, according
to official chronicles, the Han emperor offered
an
ox, sheep, and
pig
as
sacrifice
at
Kongzi's tomb. The chronicles do
not
record any state sacrifices
to
Kongzi
in the
capital before 241,
when
they were performed by the chamberlain
for ceremonials in
the Imperial University for the first time (Chen Shou
112971
1958,
4.119), and
in
630
the court ordered the construction of state temples in prefectural and
county schools
to create a network of temples throughout the empire (Ouyang
[10601
1975, 15.373).
Official Kong temples were thus physically connected to state
schools, both
in the
capital,
where the
temple
was next to the Directorate of
Education,
and inside
local
school
compounds,
which
together provided a critical institutional site for
the
propagation of state orthodoxy.
Despite the absence of consistently observed nominal
distinctions between official
temples
and the
Qufu temple, there
were
some important
differences.
The court
tended
to accommodate family concerns in
the
Qufu temple, such
as
in
1330 (Zhishun
1/7/29),
when
the court posthumously promoted Kongzi's father,
Shuliang He,
from
Duke to King who Gave
Birth
to the Sage (Qisheng wang) and
constructed a Qisheng
shrine
(Qisheng ci)
to house his
spirit image
to the west of
the main hall in the
temple
in
Qufu.'9
An
issue
that
concerned ritualists
in
the
Ming
was the
apparent
violation
of
the
ancient
principle
that fathers should
occupy
a
higher position
than
their
sons,
even
when
the son is
more eminent.
In a
memorial to the
throne written
in
1438
(Zhengtong 3/3),
it was
pointed
out
that
the "ritual
sequence
in
the
culture
temples
throughout
the
empire was determined solely
on the
basis
of
the
transmission of the
Dao.
In
the ancestral hall
[sic]
in Queli
tQuful,
the moral
principle
of the
bond
between father
and
son must be
properly preserved.'
'20
But
Yan
Hui, Zeng Can,
and
Kong Ji,
"who
are the sons, receive sacrifices as correlates
in
the main
hall," whereas
Yan
Wuyao, Zeng Dian,
and
Kong Li,
who are the
fathers, are enshrined
in
[a lower position
in]
the cloisters.21 Not
only
is
the
prescribed status [mingfenl improper,
I
also
fear that the
spirits
will not be
'8Kongzi's
thirteenth-generation descendant Kong Ba was
the
first
to receive
a
hereditary
noble title-that of
marquis-by Han Yuandi (r. 48-33
B.C.) (Kong
Jifen
1762,
18.1a).
Kong Renyu (912-56,
forty-third generation) was promoted to
Duke
for
Propagating
Culture
(Wenxuan gong)
in
952. Abigail
Lamberton is
currently
working
on a
dissertation
at
the
University
of
Pittsburgh
on the
Kongs
of
Qufu.
19This was in
response to a petition by Duke Kong
Sihui (1267-1333), Kongzi's fifty-
fourth-generation
descendant. Kongzi's mother nee
Yan
was promoted to
Lady
who Gave
Birth
to the Sage, and his
wife
nee
Qiguan was ennobled as Lady of
the King of Propagating Culture,
Great
Completer,
and
Ultimate
Sage (Dacheng zhisheng
wenxuan
wangfuren)
in
1333 (Bi
[18011
1957, 206.5599-6000;
Ji 1787, 48.3226; Song
[13701
1976,
34.763).
20The memorialist
was Pei Kan, then instructor of the
School of the Three Clans in
Qufu.
21Yan Wuyao
(styled Lu) and Zeng Dian (styled Xi)
were also Kongzi's disciples
and
therefore were
enshrined in the temple in 739 (Kaiyuan
27/8/29) among his seventy disciples
(Sima Guang
[10671
1956, 214.6839; Ouyang
[10601
1975, 15.375-76). Kong
Li
(styled
Boyu), Kongzi's son,
was enshrined in the temple as Duke
Sishui in 1267 (Xianchun 3/1/20),
when Kong
Ji
was
promoted to correlate (Song
[13701
1976, 105.2554;
Bi
[18011
1957,
178.4870). Very little
is said of Kong Li in official histories
and family genealogies (see, for
example, his short
biography in Kong Shangren
[16841
1969, 3.2b), who died at the age of
50 sui (before Kongzi
died).
568
THOMAS A.
WILSON
placated.
In
the
Yuan, Kongzi's
father
Shuliang
He was
already posthumously
ennobled
as
King
who Gave Birth to the
Sage
and a room was
created to the west of
the
main hall
for
the
offering of sacrifices.
The
fathers
of Yan
Hui and
Mengzi
are
both ennobled as
dukes,
whereas
[Kongzi's
son
Kong
Lii and
[Zeng
Diani are still
marquises.
I
beg
the court to
posthumously
ennoble them
with the rank
of
duke
and,
together with the
fathers
of
Yan Hui and
Mengzi, establish
them
as correlates in the
King Qisheng
hall.
The emperor
ordered the
Ministry
of
Rites to
implement
this
proposal
in
the
Qufu
temple (Zhang
[17391
1974, 50.1297; Long 1963,
11.177; Huang 1994, 141-42).
The confusion
of
temple
nomenclature
in
this memorial is
revealing:
the
reference to
the jiamiao-or ancestral hall-of the
Qufu Kongs,
is
clearly
mistaken. The
jiamiao,
located directly east
of the
Kongmiao,
houses
only
the
spirit
tablets of the first
ancestor
of the
Kong lineage
and two later
Kongs-not
even
Kongzi
is
represented
there-
and
certainly
the
spirits
of Yan
Hui
and
Zeng
Can are
not
represented
in
the
family
shrine of
the
Kongs.22
These
changes
were not
implemented
in
state
schools
throughout
the
empire.
However,
half
a
century
later distinctions between the
state
and
ancestral cult
functions of the
Kong temple
were obscured when court officials
sought
to extend
this same
familizing
logic
to the
imperial temple.
In
September
1488
(Hongzhi
1/8/
3),
Vice
Supervisor
of
the Household
Cheng Minzheng
(1445-ca. 1499) memorialized,
Since
the
Tang
and
Song,
Yan
Hui, Zeng Can,
and
Kong
Ji
received oblations
up
in
the
[main]
hall
[of
the
templel, yet [their
fathers]
are all
seated down
in
the two
cloisters. I have examined the rites: "even
if a
son is
equal
to
a
sage,
he does not take
precedence
before his father"
[allusion
to
Zuozhuan,
"Duke Wen"
2.81. Moreover,
the
learning
of
the Three
Dynasties
was
concerned
with
how to
illuminate
proper
human
relationships
[viz.,
principally family
relations].
The
way Kongzi taught
and
his
disciples
learned was
nothing
more than
the illumination of
this,
that
is all. To
seat the sons above and the fathers below is
hardly
consonant with
the rites.
Now
if
one
maintains that this
[temple]
honors the efforts
of
transmitting
the
Dao,
then
from
antiquity
to the
present,
no
one has
ever
spoken
of
the Dao outside
of
the
human
relationships.
Cheng Minzheng
then
requested
the court to
erect shrines for
Giving
Birth
to the
Sage
in all
school
temples
to offer
sacrifices to
Kongzi's
father
Shuliang He, and those
of the other correlates.23 Then
Cheng explicitly
links
the
familization of the state cult
with
Cheng-Zhu
orthodoxy
when
he
says,
were it not for
the
fathers
of
the Dao School
masters,
the
"transmission of the
sages' learning
that
was lost after
Mengzi" would
not have
been
continued
again. Cheng requested
the enshrinement
of
the
fathers of
the Cheng brothers, Zhu
Xi,
and
Cai Shen
(who
compiled
the
official version of the
Documents called
the
Shujing
jizhuan)
in
the
Qisheng
shrine as
scholars.24 Since Dao
22The first ancestor is
probably Weizhong,
younger brother of Weizi,
first duke of Song
under
the
Zhou
dynasty (Chen
Hao
1505,
2.1
1b). Also housed
in the
Qufu jiamiao
are
Kong
Renyu (see notes 18
and
32),
Kong
Sihui
(1267-1333),
the
first duke
after
the southern
Kongs
ceded
their title, and Kong
Yinzhi (d. 1647) of the
sixty-fifth generation.
The lineage heir
(zongzi) sacrifices only
to
Sihui's
and
Yinzhi's
spirits
(Kong
Jifen
[17651
1980,
1.la-2a).
23That is Yan Hui's
father
Yan
Wuyao, Zeng
Can's father Zeng Dian,
Kong Ji's (Zisi)
father
Kong Li,
and
Mengzi's
father
Meng
Ji.
24i.e., Cheng Xiang, Zhu
Song,
and Cai
Yuanding (Cheng 1779,
10.10b-12a;
Xia
1968,
36.1383; Huang 1994,
138f).
Lii
(1613, 2B.111)
erroneously
attributes
this memorial
to
Zhang Cong.
A
similar request was
made to no avail
in 1501 (Lui 1613,
2B.111).
THE RITUAL FORMATION OF CONFUCIAN ORTHODOXY 569
Schoolmen were still situated at the low end of the ritual hierarchy, this gesture is
particularly striking because it required bypassing the fathers of the worthies and
scholars after
the
correlates.
All
debate on the Kong temple was abruptly terminated
when
the secretary
of the
Ministry of Rites demurred after Cheng Minzheng and
others
also called for the
extraordinary measure
of
removing several persons, including
Xunzi,
from the
temple
on
grounds of heresy (see Wilson 1995, 55-56).
The Qisheng shrine proposal, as well as the issues of spirit images and noble
titles, was
taken
up again
in
1530 (Jiajing 9/11/7) during
the
Jiajing temple
reforms
that changed the Kong temple to its current form. These changes included
establishment
of the
Qisheng shrine,
which was
situated
at the
primary,
or north end
of
the
temple complex.25
Grand
Secretary Zhang Cong said,
"What should
be
corrected
in the
sacrificial regulations
on
the first teacher
fKongzil,
is this: Shuliang
He
is
Kongzi's father,
and
Yan Lu, Zeng Xi, and Kong Li are the fathers of Yan Hui,
Zeng Can,
and
Kong
Ji
respectively. Yet, [the
sons]
receive sacrifices as correlates
in
the [main
hall]
of the temple, whereas [Shuliangi He and the other fathers are
enshrined
in
the two cloisters. How can the mind of the
sages
and worthies rest
easy
with this?" The
emperor
concurred with his
grand secretary's reasoning, saying,
"The
sage
reveres heaven the
same way
he
reveres his
kin.'"
26
The court ministers
surely
discerned
in
the
emperor's analogy between
the honor
bestowed upon
one's
own kin
with that of Heaven an
oblique
allusion to
the Great
Rites
controversy
that consumed
the court in the first few years of his reign. When he ascended the throne, the Jiajing
emperor
had declined to
have himself adopted by his cousin the late emperor,
who
had died
without
an
heir.
Instead
he insisted
on
bestowing
the title
of
emperor upon
his natal father and grandfather (who never actually served as rulers),
and
during
the
years 1521-24
incurred the zealous resistance
of
court officials
who were concerned
to maintain
an
unbroken
heritage
of the
imperial
succession
(/itong).7
With
a
passion
unmatched
by any
other
Ming emperor,
the
Jiajing
emperor
seized
upon every
opportunity
to admonish the world
to
honor filial
duty.
It is
easy
to
exaggerate
the
emperor's personal
motives and even
Zhang Cong's self-aggrandizing
maneuvers as
decisive causes
of
these reforms. Whether
the
Jiajing emperor's
obsession
with his
father's
ritual status
was an
authentic
expression
of
filial
piety
or a crude
political
maneuver to establish
a
new line of
royal
descent within the
Ming imperial clan,
the
1530
ritual
changes
in
the
Kong temple
drew on
an
iconoclastic
tradition
that
began
more than a
hundred
and
fifty years
earlier.
In a sense the removal of
spirit images from
state
temples
endorses
Qiu Jun's
iconoclastic view
that
the
flesh-and-blood Kongzi
should be
deemphasized.
Yet the
construction
of
shrines for
Kongzi's father, though evidently expressing
the cardinal
virtue of
filial
piety,
was
not,
as Liu
Zongzhou (1578-1645) pointed
out
a
century
later, entirely
consistent with the
iconoclastic
orientation
of the
1530
reforms.
In a
memorial written in
1621, Liu,
then
secretary
of the Bureau
of
Ceremonies
in
the
25Zhang
[17391
1974, 50.1299-1300;
Li and Shen
[15871
1976, 91.33a;
Lu
1613,
2B.112. The name of this shrine was
changed to Adoring the Sage (Chongsheng
ci) in 1723
(Zhao
[19271
1985, 84.2534).
26Court debates are recounted
in
detail
in
Zhang
([17391
1974, 50.1298-1300)
and
Xia
(1968, 55.2066-68). See also Huang
(1994, 136-37). When the Qisheng
shrine was com-
pleted the following year, the fathers
of the Cheng brothers, Zhu Xi and Cai Shen,
were added
to the shrine as scholars (Ji 1787, 48.3233).
27See Fisher
(1990)
and
Huang (1994,
133-35). Huang (1994, 136)
maintains that
Zhang
Cong purposely extended the principles
that
guided the Jiajing emperor
in the Great Rites
dispute to formulate his position
on the Kong temple.
570
THOMAS A.
WILSON
Ministry
of
Rites, asked the court to "correct the
regulations on the Kong
Temple"
by removing
the
Qisheng shrine
from official
temples and erecting
shrines
for the
ancestors
of
the
sages next to family temples in
order more properly to
"revere the
Dao of the
teacher of ten thousand
generations." Liu maintained that
Kongzi enabled
the Dao of
sage-kings before him "to operate
throughout the myriad
generations as
if
it were
a
single
day. Thus Zhongni
tKongzil
became
the
'teacher
of
the ten
thousand
generations'
twanshi
shil.
This is
why
it
is said 'Since the
birth
of the
people,
there
has been no one such as the
Master."'
Attempting to posthumously venerate
Kongzi,
Liu Zongzhou said "later
generations
ennobled
him as
duke, then
later
as
king,
and
conferred
posthumous
titles of
propagator
[xuan],
then
later
propagator
of
culture
twenxuanl,
and
finally
the
great completer
tdachengl."
These
privileges
were
later
"extended to his
living descendants by
ennobling them
first as earls
and
later
as
dukes."
Yet,
such
expressions
of
reverence,
Liu
said,
have
nothing
to
do
with
"paying
homage
to the Dao
of
Kongzi."
Thus when the
Jiajing emperor changed
Kongzi's
status from
king
to
teacher, replaced
the
statues with
tablets, and removed the title
of Culture
Propagating King,
the "real face of
Kongzi's sagaciousness was
finally
revealed
to
the
world" (Liu n.d.
[18221,
14.22a).
While he
lauds
the
emperor's daring
temple reforms,
Liu
Zongzhou
maintains
that
the ritual
changes instituted to proclaim the
august status
of the
Jiajing
emperor's
father
were based on false
analogies.
To
search for
the
ancestry of
Kongzi's
sagaciousness "will
give you
the
family
sacrifices of the
Kong family."
The
Jiajing
emperor
"revered
Kongzi
because of the Dao
[yi
Dao zun
Kongzil,
[yet
he]
still
sought
out
Kongzi
in the
flesh-and-blood
of the
physical
body [qiu Kongzi yu
xierou zhi
qul,
and from this
body
he
sought [Kongzi'sl
father,
and
then from this father
he sought
[Kongzi'sl grandfather.
The
further he went, the more he lost
the
authentic
[Kongzil"
(Liu
n.d.
[18221,
14.22b).28
Liu
argued
that
"the rites do not
work
this
way
and
the
search for them
in
such
analogies
fjiajiel
has
always
led
to
their
corruption."
Liu
extends this
analogy
further to
expose its flaws:
"I
have never heard
it
said
that in
taking
a
teacher,
one also takes his father and
grandfather as
a
teacher."
In
serving
Kongzi
with the
rites of the king, we see
only
the reverence of
ennoblement
[juel
without
recognizing
the calculation
of
utility
and
profit
when noble
titles
are
conferred
upon
the Dao. In
serving Kongzi
with
family rites,
we see
only
the
foundation of
life,
without
recognizing
the
beginnings
of the Dao as
flesh-and-blood.
If
one
speaks
of the Dao on
the basis of
flesh-and-blood,
how is it
possible to avoid
speaking
of human
nature on the basis of food and sex?
These are
truly
the seeds of
utility
and
profit
which sink
into the
deepest
pit
of
human
failings.
(Liu
[n.d.J
1822,
14.22b-23a)
Not
only
does
conferring
noble titles on
Kongzi
do
nothing
to elevate the
Dao,
but
Liu
Zongzhou
argues
that
misleading
analogies
had serious
repercussions.
By
rewarding
someone and his kin
for
transmitting
the
Truth,
the court
engendered
the
tendency
to
engage
in
the calculation of
utility
and
profit
when
transmitting
the
Dao,
which
degraded
the
Dao
and
risked
submerging
it
in
the
deepest pit
of
human
failings.
Clearly,
some of the
Jiajing temple
reforms were
aimed
at
erasing
the
traces
of the
flesh-and-blood
Kongzi
from
the state rites and
distinguishing
them from ancestral
rites, yet
the
Qisheng
shrine
inadvertently
obscured the distinction
between
the
28This distinction between the man Kongzi
and his Dao is similar to Qiu Jun's statement
that "the reason
[Kongzil
is revered and
worshipped for a thousand generations lies in the
Way,
not
in
noble
rank
or
appellations" (quoted
in
Sommer 1993, 245).
THE
RITUAL
FORMATION OF
CONFUCIAN
ORTHODOXY
571
doctrinal
descendants of the
Sage and his
family
descendants.
Although
Liu's
proposal
was
evidently
ignored,
it
suggests
that
there was not a
consensus
among
Confucian
ritualists on the
proper
relationship
between the
state cult
and the
Kong ancestral
cult.
A
politically
motivated analogy
between
the Sage's
father and
the Jiajing
emperor's
father
became
a
pretext
to
theorize
enshrinement
practices
that in
some
ways
conflicted with an
otherwise iconoclastic
defamilization
of
state rites
in
the
official
temple.
And
the
Descendants
of the
Sage
Around the
time that
Kongzi's
doctrinal
descendants
began to
commingle with
his
family
descendants in
the temple,
Ming
ritualists began to
extend this
familizing
logic
to the
living
descendants of the
founding
masters of the
Dao School
conception
of
the Truth
by
granting them
hereditary noble
titles. The
descendants of Yan
Hui
and
Mengzi
were first
granted the
hereditary
title of Hanlin
Erudite
of
the
Five
Classics
(Wujing
boshi)
in
1452
and those
of
Zeng
Can
in
1539.
Between
1456
and
1457
(Jingtai
6/6), the
Ming court
made explicit the
connection between
conferring
these
hereditary
titles and its
canonization of
a
specifically
Cheng-Zhu
orthodoxy when
it
granted the
same
hereditary position
to
descendants of first
Zhu Xi,
then those of
the
Cheng brothers and
Zhou Dunyi.29 Once
the
living flesh-and-blood
heirs
were
admitted to
the
process
of
canonizing
Confucian
orthodoxy, the "seeds of
utility
and
profit"
dreaded
by Liu
Zongzhou
did indeed reveal the
"deepest pit of human
failings."
For
example,
in
1452,
the
same
year
that
he
was
summoned to the
capital
to
receive official
appointment,
Yan
Hui's
descendant
was
impeached
and
demoted,
and his
brother was made
Erudite of Five Classics. After it was
found
that this man
was
not the
"genuine
heir"
(dizi),
he was
replaced
by
his elder
brother
(Zhang
[17391
1974,
284.7300-1).
Kongzi's
living descendants had
received
noble
titles and an
ever-expanding
fiefdom
since the
Han;
thus
it
was
China's oldest
hereditary noble clan.
With
a
sizable
heritage and noble
title
it
was possible for
the
Kong lineage to observe
classical rules
for
the
great
lineage
(dazong) described
in
the Book
of Rites: the senior
line
retained
strong
affinal
ties with
junior
segments,
which
were
subordinated
to the
ritual
prerogatives of the senior
lineage heir
(zongzi),
except when the court intervened
(see,
for
example, Liji
zhengyi
1980,
2.1268-69,
16.1507-8;
Ebrey 1991,
56-61;
Chow
1994, chap. 4).
Kong
family genealogies
meticulously
recorded the order
of
lineage
segments,
clearly
delineating
the scions of
the
senior
lineage
who
were
distinguished
from
the cadet branches.
The status of
senior
heir of the main
lineage
was
both
carefully protected
and
periodically
contested,
such as in the twelfth
century
when
there was
a
split
between the northern
and southern
lineages
that continues to the
present
day.
The
segmentation of the
Kongs into
northern
and southern
lineages began
after
Duke
Kong Duanyou,
Kongzi's
forty-eighth-generation
descendant,
followed
the
Song emperor
Gaozong
(r.
1127-62)
when he fled
the
invading
Jurchen,
and
29This title
was first
granted to Yan
Hui's
fifty-ninth-generation
descendant,
Yan
Xihui,
Mengzi's
fifty-sixth-generation
descendant, Meng
Xiwen, and
Zeng Can's
sixtieth-generation
descendant, Zeng
Zhicui.
It
was granted to Zhu
Xi's
ninth-generation
descendant, Zhu
Ting
(1405-72),
Cheng Yi's
seventeenth-generation
descendant, Cheng
Keren, and
Zhou
Dunyi's
(1017-73)
twelfth-generation
descendant
Zhou Mian
(1429-79);
Zhang
Zai's
(1020-77) de-
scendants were granted
this
rank
in 1622 and
Shao
Yong's
(1011-77)
in
1630
(Zhang
[17391
1974, 73.1790,
284.7300-7304; Ji 1787,
48.3228-29). After
Cheng Hao's
descendants
died
out
in
the Ming,
one of Cheng
Yi's descendant
was
adopted into
Cheng Hao's
lineage
in
1630
and
given the
title of erudite,
but he was
killed by
bandits in 1641.
572
THOMAS A.
WILSON
KONG RENYU
(912- 956)
YI (946-
986) Duke 978
Yanze
ZONGYUAN
Duke 1038
RUOMENG
Duke
1068
DUANYOU (d. 1132) Duke
1104
JIE (1124-1154)
Southern
Duke 1132
JIN (1146-1193) Southem Duke 1154
WENYUAN
(1186-)
Southem
Duke 1193
WANCHUN
Southem
Duke
1226
T
ZHU
Southem
Duke 1241-82
1
Kezhong
Gongcheng|
YANSHENG Erudite 1506
Figure
1.
Quzhou Kongs: Southern Kong version
(Kong
Zhaozhen
1918)
relocated
the
Kong lineage's ancestral shrine in Quzhou, an inland domain of central
Zhejiang. Kong Duanyou's
descendants
passed
on the
ducal title for 150 years under
the
authority
of the
Southern Song court (see figure 1). Left behind in Qufu was
Duanyou's younger brother Kong Duancao, who, after the Jurchen formally
proclaimed
the Jin
dynasty (1115-1234),
was
appointed Duke
in
1128; his
descendants
passed
on the ducal title in
Qufu
for another
130 years under authority
of the
Jin
(see figure 2).
When the
Mongols
reunited
the
empire
in
1282,
the
emperor
asked
Kong
Zhu
(d. 1316), Kongzi's fifty-third-generation
descendant
and Duke
of
the
Kongs
in
Quzhou,
to return to his ancestral
lands
in
Shandong and resume his
position
as
duke of the
Kongs
in
Qufu. Kong
Zhu
declined
on
grounds
that his
ancestors had lived
in
the south for several
generations
and he
could not
bear
to leave
his
parents' grave.
The
emperor reportedly sighed,
"He
would
rather
give up
emolument
than
give up
the Dao!
This
is
truly
the
Sage's descendant,"
and
rewarded
him
with the concurrent titles of Libationer of the
Nation's
Sons and
Education
Intendant
of Eastern Zhe
Schools,
then
allowed Kong Zhu to return south to maintain
the
temple
and
cemetery (Xi-an
xianzhi
28.1a-4a; Yang [17111 1882, 7.la-12a; Xu
THE RITUAL FORMATION OF CONFUCIAN ORTHODOXY 573
RENYU
(912-956)
43rd generation descendant
44
YI
X
Duke
978 (946-986)
45
YANSHI|
Yanze
Daofu
Duke c.
997
(986-1039)
46
SHENGYOU
46 ZONGYUAN
|hr
in
Duke 1021
(997-1031)
Duke 1038
Shunliang
Southem
47
RUOMENG
47 RUOXU
Ruoyu
Southem
Ruogu/Chuan
Lineage
Duke 1068 Duke 1098
Branch
48
DUANYOU
48 DUANCAO
Duanli
Duanwen
Duke 1104 N.
Duke
1130
Northiem
Lineage
(d. 1132)
49
JEE
49 FAN
So
S. Duke 1132
N. Duke
1133
H
(1124-1154)
(1104-1142)
50
IN
50CHENG
5
oZONG
|
S. Duke 1154 N.
Duke
1142
N.
Duke 1163
(1146-1193) (1134-1161) (d. 1190)
51 WENYUAN
51
YUANCUO
Yuanhong Yuanxiao 51
YUANYONG Yingfa
S.
Duke 1193 (b.
1186)
N.
Duke 1191-1225(b.
1181)
N.Dukel225
52 WANCHUN
Zhigu
Zhihou
52
ZIQUAN
Zhiyan
S. Duke
1226
N.Duke1226-33
53ZHU
53ZHEN
53Z |
an
S.
Duke
1241-82
N.
Duke 1251-59
Duke 1295
54
SIHUISill
Sx
F Duke
1316
(1267-1333)
Kon
i (KEIIAN
3n
DKezhong
9
Duke 1335
(1316-130
56XIU
|Duke 1345
(1336-1381)|
'
|
57 NA
?
Duke
1383
(1361-1400)
T
1458
GONGJIAN
J
1Gongcheng
H
wDuke
1400
(1380-14fnl
a i Q
59
YANJIN
1
59
YANSHENG|
dDuke
1410
(1400
1455)
n sr
Erudite
1506
a
60
CHENGQING
|
60
CHENGIME|
|Duke
1455
(d.
1455)
||Erudite 1519|
61HONGXU
|
61HONGZHANG|
Duke 1455
(1448-1504)
|Erudite
1547
162 WANSHAO ]
62
WENYIN
|Duke
1503
Erudite 1577n
Figure
2.
Ducal Branches of the
Kong
Lineage:
Northern
Kong
version
(Kong
Decheng
1937)
1946,
88-89;
Ji
1787, 48.3224;
Zhang
1:17391
1974,
284.7300;
Chen
Hao
1505,
2.42a-46b;
Kong
Jifen
1762,
73.2a-b).
For reasons
that are
not
explicitly
stated,
the
northern
lineage
was not
formally given
sole
possession
of the
ducal
title until
1295,
when
a
duke was
finally appointed
in
Qufu.
Clansmen removed
the
previous
northern
duke
from his
position
earlier,
in
1259,
"because
he
did
not
serve
with
learning
and
refinement"
(Chen
Hao
1505,
2.46a-46b).
The Yuan court's
insistence
upon unifying
the
Kong lineage
under
a
single
duke
residing
in the north-even when
there was
574 THOMAS A. WILSON
no duke there-was certainly tied to its overall aim of political unification of the
empire under
a
single polity.
After Kong
Zhu
ceded
his
ducal
title to the northern
lineage,
the southern
Kongs
fell
into
near
oblivion,
in
part
because
its
members
were
virtually ignored
in
subsequent
standard
histories
and,
until the twentieth
century,
omitted
from
official
clan
genealogies (viz., Kong Decheng 1937).
All
Kongs
who move
away
from
Qufu
drop
out of the
genealogy entirely,
as if
the
very ground upon
which
the
Sage
had
walked was sacred.
The northern
Kongs evidently
deleted
Kong Duanyou's
descendants
from what
they
called
the
"Kong
ancestral court"
(Kongshi zuting)
half
a
century
before the
Mongol
unification.
In
his
Expanded Record of
the
Kong Family's
Ancestral
Court, Kong
Yuancuo
(b. 1181)
constructs
a
seamless
line
from Master
Kong
to himself by listing his own grandfather
as
Duanyou's ducal successor.
Without
mentioning
the
separation
of
the two
lineages, Kong
Yuancuo
meticulously
lists
the
names of each duke's sons, but is silent about Kong Duanyou's son, second duke
of
the southern
Kong lineage (Kong
Yuancuo
1227, 1.13b-14a).
This
is not his
only
concern,
for
Yuancuo
himself
had
no
heirs and was the last of his line to
serve
as
duke.
In 1225 the ducal title was conferred upon a collateral branch that held the title for
the remainder of the imperial era.
The
Qufu Kongs
exercised
a
degree
of
control over the
segments
of the
Kong
lineage
that
resettled
elsewhere
by requiring
them to
update
their
genealogy
periodically.
As
early
as
1498,
the
southern
Kongs
submitted
a
genealogy listing
Kong
Zhu's descendants
(see figure 1), although
that he had
any
bloodline descendants
at all
is
open
to
doubt.
There
is
virtually
no
agreement among any
of
the accounts
on the
lineage
of
primary
heirs of the southern
Kongs.
Most sources
emanating
from
Qufu
maintain
that
Kong
Zhu had
no
heirs
(wuhou),
whereas
Quzhou gazetteers
and
southern
Kong genealogies
trace a line of
Kong
Zhu's descendants
to
Yansheng
of
the
fifty-ninth generation.30 By
this
time,
the southern
Kongs
were all
but forgotten
in
the collective
memory
of
the
literati,
which is evident
in
a memorial written
to
the throne in
1495 by
the
new
prefect
of
Quzhou,
Shen Jie
(jinshi 1484).
He
reports
that
"After
I
assumed my duties as prefect of Quzhou in Zhejiang,
I
found
a
family
temple
[jiamiaol
of
the First
Teacher Kongzi
in
the southern reaches of this prefecture.
In the
Song,
five
[hundred moul
of
sacrificial
land
was
awarded
[to
the
Kongsl
which
had been
preserved
and
managed by
successive
generations
of the
genuine descendants
[zhengpai
zisunj that
carried out
the
sacrifices without
fail"
(Kong Zhaozhen 1918,
"Jiagui," la).
But
now, the prefect continues, some of the "land
that
was given them
by previous dynasties
is
barren
and
unproductive.
The
descendants are
just barely able
to produce the more
than
130 bushels of grain for the annual taxes and it is nearly
impossible
to
get enough money
to
support
the
performance
of sacrifices. This minister
feels
deep pity." Kong Duanyou's
descendants who assume the
responsibility
for
performing
sacrifices no
longer
have
access
to
unified
records,
Shen
says,
"the
clothing,
cap,
and
sacrificial
regulations
have
become confused
with those of commoners.
Qufu
is
the
same as
Quzhou: they
are
both
descendants
of
the
propagating Sage.
There are
regulations governing
those
in
Qufu
who
continue
the ducal
heritage,
but the
genuine
branch and authentic
lineage
in
Quzhou
alone has no one to instruct it and the
regulations
are deficient.'
'31
Shen Jie then
formally requested
the
throne
to
confer the
30Kong Jifen (1762, 30.5b) maintains
that
Kong Zhu (fifty-third generation) died without
an
heir,
whereas
Li
Dongyang
([15051
1870, 9.13b-14a) and the
Xi-an xianzhi
(1700, 28.2a)
list Kong Zhu's son
as
Sixu (fifty-fourth generation), whose fifth-generation descendant
is
given
as Yansheng. Kong
Zhaozhen
(1918, "Quzhou boshi gongpai xingchuan," 23b) specifies that
Sixu was
Kong
Lii's son who "continued"
(ji)
Zhu's
line, presumably through adoption.
3IKong
Zhaozhen
1918, "Jiagui," lb. The last two sentences are not included
in
most
official
versions
of
this memorial and may
have
been added later to the version
in
Xi-an xianzhi
28.3a-b.
THE
RITUAL FORMATION OF CONFUCIAN
ORTHODOXY 575
hereditary
title
of Hanlin Erudite of the Five Classics upon the
eldest male descendant
of the southern
Kong lineage, who
at
the time was Kong
Yansheng.
Kong Gonghuang of a collateral branch in Qufu,
Shandong, opposed this request
saying "sixty-one generations have passed
[since
Kongzil.
The
correct lineage has been
transmitted in an orderly fashion without
corruption....The dukes who transmitted
the great progenitor's heritage have carefully attended to the
sacrifices and have loyally
and piously revered this culture. This is proven to all under
Heaven who revere
the
founding
ancestor
and lineage, and nourish the agnates"
(1495). Later,
in an
essay
titled "Examination of the Genuine Descendants," written in
1501, Gonghuang
accuses the southern Kongs of falsifying the genealogical
record
in
order to gain
concessions from the court. "Lineage regulations are an ancient
rite," Gonghuang
begins, "Few
[clans}
have been preserved after the Three
Dynasties. Only we Kongs
of
Queli, from generation to generation have been invested
with noble
rank
and
supervised
the
performance
of
sacrifices. One genuine
transmission passed on as
straight as
an
arrow." He then describes the lineage of the
Sage's descendants, its near
extinction in the early tenth century at the hands of a serf
who usurped the Kong
surname, killed
the
true heir, and assumed his position.32
Later, in 1129 Kong
Duanyou settled in Quzhou, he continues, while his brother
"Duancao stayed behind
[in Quful
to
protect
the
temple and cemetery," implying
that
only through
Duancao's
courage
was
the Kong heritage preserved. Gonghuang continues
that
the Jurchen-Jin
ordered Duancao to
"temporarily continue
the
post
of Duke for
Fulfilling
the
Sage
and
supervise
sacrificial
affairs. This is called the northern
lineage" (1501, 30b).
Scrutinizing
the
Kong genealogy (see figure 2),
Gonghuang points
to
a break in
Duanyou's
southern
lineage:
"The
southern lineage's Duanyou
[had
a
son}33Jie
[1124-
541
[whose
descendants]
all
inherited
the rank of
Duke
for
Fulfilling
the
Sage
in
Qu[zhou).
Kong
Zhu
had
no
son, whereupon
[sui)
the
fiefdom ceased."34
Kong
Gonghuang
maintains
that
the
ducal
line
in the
north was continued
by
another
branch after Duancao's
descendant
Yuancuo left
no
heir;
a
position
which northerners
have
accepted
ever since.
"Because
the
genuine descendants
of the southern
lineage
ended
in
the third
year
of the
Yuanyou reign
[13161
of the
Yuan,"
the eldest son
of
this
(northern)
branch became the
next genuine hereditary
head (dizhang)
and
was
"thereupon proclaimed the authentic heir to the rank of Duke for
Fulfilling
the
Sage
in Lu
[Quful."
Gonghuang
contends
that in
"the
sequence
of
generations
of the
inheritors of the northern
lineage's primary heirs,"
it
can be seen
that
"Heaven's
morality
was
without confusion. How could
it
be doubted by
a
hundred
generations?"
"Now,"
he
continues,
"Yansheng
of the southern
lineage
has
appeared,
who is the
descendant of
Kong Chuan."
In other
words, Kong
Yansheng
is not
a
scion of the
ducal line
begun
in
the
tenth
century,
but rather
a
member
of
a
cadet,
albeit
prestigious,
line.
This, Gonghuang asserts,
is
the
"origin
of the southern
lineage's
collateral branch
[shuzhil.
The old
genealogy
was based on
what was
correct,"
which
records that the
person claimed as Kong Zhu's son
is
actually
a
descendant
of
Kong
Chuan
(1501, 30b-31b).
32The death of this heir, Kong Guangsi (869-912), led to the genealogical division be-
tween inner (nei Kong) and outer Kong (wai Kong). The former refers to
all
descendants
of
Kong
Renyu, the latter to all other residents of Qufu surnamed Kong, who are excluded from clan
genealogies (Guo 1989, 201).
33The National Central Library edition leaves this space blank and has a handwritten note
saying the implication that Duanyou had a son named Jie does not agree with the generations
of descendants.
34The adverb sui in Chinese indicates chronological sequence, thus Gonghuang does not
explicitly
state a
cause-effect relationship between Zhu's having no son
and
the termination
of
the
fiefdom, although Gonghuang
seems to
suggest
that Zhu was forced to
yield
his title
because he had no heir.
576
THOMAS
A.
WILSON
Kong
Gonghuang concludes
with
the indictment
that
Kong Yansheng's
1498
genealogy,
"arbitrarily
switched the
genuine
with the collateral
[shanyi
zongtiaol
and
inserted himself'
into the "line
of
descendants of the
patriarchal lineage
that
went
south [with Song
Gaozongj
as
successors
to
Kong
Zhu." The
descendants
of
Ruoyu's
northern lineage
"constitute the genuine heads of the
lineage," nonetheless
Kong
Chuan's
descendants
"no
longer
take
Kong
Chuan as their
progenitor,
and have
arrogated
[jianj
Duanyou's heritage." This,
in
effect,
uses
"the collateral
to take over
the genuine."
Gonghuang's repeated use of
the
term
collateral could also mean
"concubinal,"
which would
surely
be
figurative, yet
in
the
language
of the
genealogist,
when the patriarchal
heritage is
at
stake,
the
point is
essentially political:
the
authentic
and rightful
heir has
been
cheated of the
patrimony.
Gonghuang
continues,
Pushing
this
a
step further,
there is
nothing [our
southern
kin]
will
not do.
They
do
not count their
blessings
and have become
the
deadbeats
of
the
Kong family. They
have
concocted
a
new
appointment
for a
hereditary
title
to
add to
their
glory
and
riches. Having
gained
this
they
are
already
eyeing
further
concessions. Their inner
thoughts
are
reprehensible.
Of
old,
when the
Sage patriarch
[Kongzil
served in
government
the
rectification of
names was
primary.
The means
by
which
Yansheng
succeeded
in
defeating
the senior
lineage
was to
rely
on the
good graces
of the
court.
Kong Gonghuang
expresses strong
sentiments
here;
these bitter
words portray his
southern
kin
as
opportunists
and
morally reprehensible.
Gonghuang goes
on to
identify
the
root
problem
and
speaks
of its
solution:
"Having stepped
on
frost,
we know
that
ice
will
soon
come,"
this cannot
but serve
as a
warning.
The reason
the
family
tradition
was ruined was due to
changes
in
the
genealogy.
Truth
and
falsehood
have
been altered
at
the
Zhe[jiang]
frontier. The
genealogy
has now been ordered to
be
set in stone so that the
schools will
forever
obey
accordingly. Especially fearing
that
my
later kin will
not
distinguish
northern
and
southern,
the
genuine
and collateral
[dishul
termination and
continuation,
I
have
thoroughly
recorded
everything
above. Some
say
that
Duanyou's
son Jie is
Duantai's
son,
who
was
then made
Duanyou's
heir.35
Gonghuang
shares with
many
of his
day
a
sense of the
power
of
genealogy
to
recover
the
truth as well as
to
deceive. The
figure
of the
lineage pervaded late
imperial
Confucian
culture,
and
its
representation
in
genealogies
was
used for
many
things
besides
kinship
ties,
most
notably
the
tradition of the Confucian
Dao itself.
Altering
the genealogy ruined
the
family tradition,
he
says, engraving
it
onto stone slabs and
displaying
it for all
to see
will
enable
the
world
to
distinguish
the
genuine from the
collateral,
truth
from
falsehood.
Ignoring Kong
Gonghuang's entreaty,
the court
granted
Shen Jie's
request
in
1505 (Zhengde
1/1/24),
in
the
early days
of the
reign
of the next
emperor.
Could
it
be
that
the court ministers had not
seen
the
true
genealogy?
Even if
the
rank of
Erudite of the Five Classics denied the
Quzhou
Kongs
parity
with the northern
Kongs
of
Qufu,
it did
give
them a
status
equal
to the
descendants
of the
correlates
and
Dao
School
progenitors
in the
system
of
Ming
hereditary
households, thereby situating
them
somewhere
just
below the
very pinnacle
of the ritual
hierarchy
that served to
reproduce
state
orthodoxy.
The throne's actions
were
very likely
dictated
by
the need to
include
all
those
implicated
in
the
production
35Kong
Gonghuang 1501, 30a-31b.
The sources do not agree on
Yansheng's pedigree.
Li
Dongyang
([15051
1870, 2.42b) and
Lu
(1613, 3A.171) list Kong Jie
(forty-ninth gener-
ation) as
Duancao's fourth son, whom
Duanyou allegedly adopted,
whereas Chen Hao lists Jie
as
Duanyou's son.
The final
sentence
is
printed
in
half-size characters in the
original document.
THE
RITUAL
FORMATION
OF
CONFUCIAN ORTHODOXY
577
of
Confucian
orthodoxy,
which
outweighed the northern
Kong
clan's
particularistic
desire
to exclude; such is
the price
of
the
throne's intervention
into
a
dispute that is
otherwise a clan affair.
Here,
certainly,
lies an
important
discordance between the state
cult of
Kongzi and the
ancestral
cult of his descendants.
The reintegration
of
the
southern
Kongs into
a
single
and
hierarchical
nexus
of
ritual cults was
a
characteristically
Ming
solution to the
legacy
of
the
Mongol
policy
of divide
and
rule.
Confucian
orthodoxy is approached in
this
study as
a
cultural construction that
came into
being
through
an
open-ended
and
ongoing
interaction
among
several
modes
of its
enunciation and
practice.
The
Directorate of
Education's examination
curriculum, the
changing expectations
and standards of the
examiners, and
other
factors related
to the
civil
service examinations
remain essential
modes
of
the
formation
of
orthodoxy. But to better locate the
place
of
orthodoxy
in late
imperial Confucian
culture,
it
is
necessary
to
conceptualize
it
as
something more than a
positive
doctrinal
content. Once
its
ritualization is
taken
into
account,
orthodoxy
can
be
seen
to creep
into the
lives and
homes of the
literati
in
manifold ways. The
Confucian
gentry effected
orthodoxy by
studying
the
classics,
acting on
the
lessons they
learned
there, and also
through
ritualized
conduct in the
Kong temple.
Yet the
nature of literati
ritualization
of
orthodoxy depended
at
times as much on
where
it
was performed as
how
it was
performed
because, as we
have
seen, the Kong
temple could
signify two
ritualized
locations that
were
not exactly
equivalent.
During the course
of events
that defined
the
meaning of these
temples and
their liturgies,
it is possible
at certain
moments to
distinguish
the
state
temples
from the
Kong
temple
in
Qufu,
but after
1530
their
meanings
often
became
intertwined,
hybridizing
the
official
sacrifices to
Kongzi
in
ways
that
rendered
them
neither
strictly
civil
nor familial.
Although the court
overtly
exercised
authority over the
Kong
family cult
by
determining
who
was
to hold the
title of
duke and
prescribing
Qufu temple
rites, Kongzi's
descendants also effected
important,
if
subtle,
changes
in official
rites. The familization of the state
cult
in
Ming
times
adds to the
Kong temple's
function of
honoring
Kongzi
as the
progenitor
of
Confucian
doctrine-expressing
universal
duty
to
the
throne-a
profound
sense
of
filial
obeisance
to the
flesh-and-blood
man
Kongzi,
to his
father,
and
indeed to the
fathers of all
the men
whose
writings
transmitted the
Dao.
Ap
endix
Ming-Qing
Liturgy o
the
Kong
Temple
Rites
As a
middle-level
sacrifice, oblations
in
the
Ming
were offered twice
a
year
on
the
first
ding day (the
fourth day of
the ten-day
cycle)
of
the second and
eighth
lunar
months in
spring
and
autumn
(Li
and
Shen
[15871 1976,
91.28a).
The
ceremonies
in
the
capital
were
supervised by
members
of the
Court
of
Imperial
Sacrifices,
the
Director
of Studies of the
Directorate
of
Education,
and senior officials from the Board
of Rites.
Three
days
prior
to the
ceremony, they
abstained
from
eating
meat,
contact
with
wives
and
concubines,
attending funerals,
and
listening
to music
(Lii
1613,
4.280).
The
day before the
ceremony, they supervised the rehearsals and
inspected
the
sacrificial
offerings.
The
level of
offering
varied
depending upon
where a
spirit
tablet
was
located
in the
ritual
hierarchy.
The exact
prescriptions
for
each
offering
varied
little
between 1530
and the
nineteenth
century. According
to Ming
texts, on
an
offering
table
(zhuanzhuo)
in
front
of
Kongzi's
spirit
tablet were
placed three
tripod-
goblets
(jue)
of
wine;
a
raised
platform
bowl
(deng)
of
unsalted beef
broth;
two
bronze
tripods
(xing) of mixed
beef
and
salted pork
soup; ten
baskets (bian)
separately
578
THOMAS A. WILSON
containing salt, dried fish, dates, chestnuts,
hazelnuts,
water
chestnuts, basket stars,
dried venison, wheat-honey white and
buckwheat-honey black cakes;
two
wooden
boxes (fu)
of
glutinous millets;
two
bowls
(gui)
of millet
grains;
ten wooden
vessels
(dou)
of
leeks, pork sauce,
reed
grass,
venison
sauce, celery grass, rabbit sauce, bamboo
shoots, fish sauce,
sweet
breads,
and
pork
shoulder
blades;
and a
square
basket
(fei)
of white silk damask.
On a shorter altar
(zu) behind
these
offerings
were
placed
a
great
sacrifice (tailao)
of an
ox, sheep,
and
pig;
and
an
incense
lamp
surrounded
by
two
candles. The correlates were each
offered
a
minor sacrifice
(shaolao)
of
a
lamb and
pig
and
the
same libations
and foods
except
they
received less
grain;
the savants shared a
pig, silk,
and
wine,
and each received
a
reduced amount of
the
grain
and
fruit
offerings.
The worthies
and
scholars
in each of
the
eastern and western cloisters collectively
shared a
pig, silk,
and three
goblets
of
wine and each received
a
reduced amount
of
the foods (Li and Shen
[15871
1976, 91.20a-21b;
Qu 1609, 3.20a-24b; Lui 1613,
4.280-84;
Jin and
Song 1691,
"Libu" 36a).
On the
morning
of the
ceremony,
drums are sounded,
the
gates
of the
temple
opened,
and the
blood
and fur of
the
sacrificed
animals
buried outside the
main
gate.
Drums are sounded
a
second and third
time when the procession of musicians, dancers,
and consecration officials (i.e.,
the sacrificing officials, secondary consecration officials,
and
one principal
consecration
official)
enter
the main hall
through
the
halberd gate,
assume
their
positions,
and the
principal
consecration
official washes his hands
in
a
basin. Attendants
carrying lamps,
incense
burners,
an
ax,
a
hatchet,
a
fan,
and
a
canopy
leave by the side gates and return
to the temple grounds through the middle gate
to
welcome Kongzi's spirit (yingshen)
to
the inner
temple grounds,
at which
point
all
chant the common verse
(jianhe)
which
begins,
"Great indeed is
the
sage Kong"
(dazai Kong sheng).
All
present
bow
(jigong)
four times.
While
musicians
chant the
serene verse (ninghe) beginning,
"Since
the
birth
of
the
people,
who
has
achieved His
magnificence?" (zi shengmin
lai shei
di qi
sheng),
and the dancers
perform
the
feather
and
reed-pipe
dance
on the
front
platform,
the
silk
damask
is
brought
in
by
an
assistant. Accompanied by
the
peace
verse (anhe) which begins
"Great indeed is the
sagacious
teacher"
(dazai shengshi),
the
principal
consecration
official
kneeling
before
Kongzi's spirit tablet,
aided
by
an
assistant
kneeling
on the
left, presents
the
first
offering (chuxian) of
silk and
libation,
after
which the assistant
places
them on the
appropriate altars,
while the
principal
consecration official kowtows (koutou).
The
prayer commemorating (zhuwen)
the
ceremony
and
praising Kongzi
is
brought
in,
read,
and
placed
on an altar to
the
left
of
the candles and incense burner. The principal
consecration
official
performs
these same rites to the
spirit tablets
of
correlates,
after
which
these
sacrifices
are
performed
to
the
savants, worthies,
and scholars
by
the
secondary
consecration officials. The whole
ceremony
is
repeated
in
the second
(yaxian)
and final
(zhongxian) offerings, accompanied
by
the veneration
(jinghe)
and common
verses
respectively, except
that
the silk
and
commemorative
prayer
are
not
offered.
The consecration
official then
drinks some of
the libation and receives
a
portion
of
the meat;
all
present then kneel three
times, kowtowing
nine times.
The
assisting
consecration
officials
proceed
to the altars
in
front of each
of
the
spirit
tablets to
move
the
sacrificial vessels
slightly, indicating
completion
of the
ceremony.
The
spirits
are
bidden farewell while
all
present
bow three
times, kowtowing
nine
times,
and the
prayer
and
silk
are burned
in an
oven
outside the inner
gate (Li
and Shen
[15871
1976, 91.2 lb-23a;
Jin and
Song 1691,
"Libu"
30a-33b).
THE RITUAL FORMATION
OF CONFUCIAN ORTHODOXY
579
Glossary
anhe
peace
verse
bian
basket
bo
earl
'J
Cai
Yuanding
p.n.
t
Cheng
Xiang
p.n.
t
on
Chongsheng
ci
Adoring
the
Sage
shrine
W1FTP
chuxian
first
offering
congsi
enshrinement
f
fE
Dacheng
zhisheng
Lady
of the
King
of
Propagating
7tk
)F
w
9
RiEi
wenxuanwang
Culture,
Great
Completer,
and
A
furen Ultimate
Sage
dacheng
dian
Hall of
Great
Completion
ft:V AR
Daotong
lineage
of the Dao
IR
Daoxue
Dao
School
dazai
Kong
sheng
Great
indeed
is the
sage
Kong
LW
dazai
shengshi
Great indeed is the
sagacious
teacher
>kC
8
dazong
great
lineage
ding
fourth
day
of
the
ten-day cycle
7
dishu
genuine
and collateral
dizhang
genuine
hereditary
head
OR
dizi genuine
heir
dou
wooden vessel
fei
square
basket
fu wooden box
Fuzi miao Master's
temple
T
gong
duke
gui
bowl
hou
marquis
jiajie
analogy
jiamiao ancestral
hall
R
jian
arrogate
jinghe veneration verse
jingshen
seminal
spirit
FT,
jitong
imperial
succession
jue
ennoblement
jugong
bow
Kong
Ba p.n.
Kong
Chuan
p.n.
T
L
Kong
Daofu p.n.
TLW*M
Kong
Duancao
p.n.
TL
AI
A
Kong
Duanyou
p.n.
TOCrZ
Kong
Guangsi
p.n.
TLYIMP
Kong
Ji
p.n.
fR
Kong
Jie
p.n.
TLfft
Kong
Li p.n.
L.M
Kong
Renyu
p.n.
ThL
{E
Kong
Sihui p.n.
TL,> Z
Kong
Sixu