| | 天子七祀: |
|
| |
|
| | 天子七祀: |
殷制，天子祭五祀：戶一，灶二，中霤三，門四，行五也。歲遍。諸侯大夫與天子同。 |
| | The Yin system stipulated that the Son of Heaven conducted sacrifices to five deities: first, the deity of the household gate (hu); second, the deity of the stove (zao); third, Zhongliu; fourth, the deity of the gate (men); and fifth, the deity of travel or roads (xing). The sacrifices were conducted once a year for each deity. Marquises, dukes, and high officials followed the same practices as the Son of Heaven.
|
| | 天子七祀: |
周制，王為群姓立七祀：曰司命，曰中霤，曰國門，曰國行，曰泰厲，曰戶，曰灶。諸侯為國立五祀：曰司命，曰中霤，曰國門，曰國行，曰公厲。大夫立三祀：曰族厲，曰門，曰行。適士立二祀：曰門，曰行。庶人立一祀：或立灶，或立戶。 |
| | The Zhou system established that the king set up seven deities for all subjects to worship: Shiming, Zhongliu, Guomen, Guoxing, Taili, Hu, and Zao. Marquises established five deities for their states to worship: Shiming, Zhongliu (the central eaves), Guomen (national gate), Guoxing (national road), and Gongli. High officials established three deities for worship: Zulì, Men, and Xing. Eligible scholars (shi) established two deities for worship: Men and Xing. Commoners established one deity for worship: either Zao or Hu.
|
| | 天子七祀: |
漢立五祀。白虎通云：「戶一祀，灶二祀，門三祀，井四祀，中霤五祀。歲一遍，有司行事，禮頗輕於社稷。」 |
| | The Han dynasty established the five deities (wu si) for worship. The Baihu Tong said: "One sacrifice was made to the deity of the household (Hu), Zao was worshipped in the second sacrifice, Men, the third deity, Jing, the fourth deity, Zhongliu was the fifth deity for worship. The sacrifices were performed once a year; officials carried out the rituals, and the ceremonies were somewhat less elaborate than those for Sheji (the gods of land and grain)."
|
| | 天子七祀: |
後漢建武初，有五祀之祭：門，戶，井，灶，中霤也。有司掌之，其祀簡於社稷矣。人家祀山神、門、戶。 |
| | In the early years of Jianwu in the Later Han dynasty, there was a sacrifice to five deities: Men (gate), Hu (household), Jing (well), Zao (stove), and Zhongliu. Officials were in charge of the rituals, but these sacrifices were simpler than those for Sheji. Households worshipped the mountain deity, Men (gate), and Hu (household).
|
| | 天子七祀: |
魏武王始定天下，興復舊祀，而造祭五祀：門、戶、井、灶、中霤也。 |
| | When the Wei Wuwang first stabilized the empire, he revived ancient rites and established sacrifices to five deities: Men (gate), Hu (door), Jing (well), Zao(stove), and Zhongliu (central eaves).
|
| | 天子七祀: |
晉傅玄云：「帝之都城宜祭一門，正宮亦祭一門，正室祭一戶，井、灶及中霤，各擇其正者祭之。」以後諸祀無聞，唯司命配享於南郊壇。 |
| | Jin dynasty's Fu Xuan said: "In the imperial capital, one gate should be worshipped; in the main palace, also one gate. In the main room, one door (hu) was sacrificed to. For Jing (well), Zao, and Zhongliu, each of their principal ones should be selected for worship." Thereafter, no further records about these deities were mentioned; only Shiming was honored alongside sacrifices at the southern suburban altar.
|
| | 天子七祀: |
隋制，其司命、戶以春，灶以夏，門以秋，行以冬，各於享廟日，中霤則以季夏祀黃帝日，各命有司祭於廟西門道南，牲以少牢。 |
| | The Sui system stipulated that sacrifices to Shiming and Hu were held in spring, Zao in summer, Men in autumn, Xing in winter, each on the day of ancestral temple offerings. Zhongliu was sacrificed during the last month of summer on the day dedicated to Yellow Emperor worship, Each deity was assigned to an official for sacrifice at the southern side of the western gate of the temple, with offerings consisting of a lesser sacrificial set (shao lao).
|
| | 天子七祀: |
大唐初，廢七祀，唯季夏祀祭中霤。開元中制禮，祭七祀，各因時享，祭之於廟庭。司命、戶以春，灶以夏，門、厲以秋，行以冬，中霤以季夏。其儀具開元禮。 |
| | In the early years of Da Tang, the seven deities were abolished; only Zhongliu was still worshipped in midsummer. During the Kaiyuan period, ritual regulations were established to worship the seven deities; each was sacrificed according to its season in the temple courtyard. Shiming and Hu were worshipped in spring, Zao in summer; Men and Li in autumn; Xing in winter; and Zhongliu during midsummer. The detailed rituals are recorded in the Kaiyuan Rites.
|
| | 天子七祀: |
說曰：天子諸侯必立五祀。五祀者，為其有居處出入飲食之用，祭之所以報德也。歷代同，或五或七。周禮，天子祭七，諸侯祭五，降殺之差也。殷天子、諸侯、大夫皆五。鄭注云殷禮者，以祭法差降殊異故言之。鄭又云：「祭灶，祀老婦人，古之始炊者也。」以此推之，七祀皆應古之始造者焉。馬融以七祀中之五：門、戶、灶、行、中霤，即句芒等五官之神配食者。句芒食於木，祝融食於火，該食於金，脩及玄冥食於水，句龍食於土。月令五時祭祀，只是金木水火土五行之祭也。許慎云：「月令孟夏祀灶。王者所祭古之有功德於人，非老婦也。」鄭玄云：「為祭五祀，灶在廟門外之東，祀灶禮，設主於灶陘。」祝融乃古火官之長，猶后稷為堯司馬，上公也。今但就灶陘而祭之，屈上公之神，何其陋也！又月令云「其帝炎帝，其神祝融」，文列在上，與祀灶絕遠，而推合之，文義不次，焉得為義也！又左傳云：「五官之神，生為上公，死為貴神。」若祭之灶陘，豈傳謂貴神乎！特牲饋食禮云「尸謖而祭饎爨」，以謝先炊者之功。知灶神是祭老婦，報先炊之義也。臧文仲燔柴灶，夫子譏之云「盛於盆，樽於瓶」，若是祝融之神，豈可以盆瓶之器，置於陘而祭之乎？鄭沖云：「五祀雖出天地之閒，陰陽之氣，實非四時五行陰陽之正者也。月令春祀戶，祭先脾；秋祀門，祭先肝。此順氣所宜，藏所值耳。又司命則司命星下食人閒，司譴過小神矣。」袁準著正論，以為：「五行之官祭於門、戶、行、灶、中霤。中霤，土神也。火正祀灶，而水正不祀井，非其類也，且社奚為於人家之屋棟閒哉！禮記王七祀，諸侯五，大夫三，冬其祀行，是記之誤也。井不輕於灶，行不唯冬。白虎通云『月令冬祀井』是也。」秦靜云：「今月令謂行為井，是以時俗或廢行而祀井。魏武興復舊祀，而祭門、戶、井、灶、中霤，凡五祀焉。高堂生月令仲冬，祀四海井泉。祭井自從小類，不列五祀，儒家誤以井於五祀，宜除井而祀行。」傅玄曰：「七祀五祀，月令皆云祀行而無井。月令先儒有直作井者。既祭灶而不祭井，於事則有闕，於情則不類，謂之井者近是也。」又按白虎通曰：「共工之子曰修，好遠遊，舟車所至，足跡所達，靡不窮覽，故祀以為祖神。」 |
| | It was said: The Son of Heaven and marquises must certainly establish sacrifices to five deities. The five deities were worshipped because they presided over the functions of residence, entry and exit, food and drink; sacrifices to them served as a means of expressing gratitude for their blessings. Throughout history this was consistent, though some dynasties worshipped five deities while others seven. According to the Zhou Li (Rites of Zhou), the Son of Heaven sacrificed to seven deities, marquises to five; this was a difference in rank and reduction. In Yin dynasty, both the Son of Heaven, marquises, and high officials all worshipped five deities. Zhang Zhu said that in Yin rites, differences were mentioned because the sacrificial practices varied according to rank and status. Zhang also said: "Sacrificing to Zao was a rite for an elderly woman, the first person in ancient times who began cooking." By this reasoning, all seven deities should correspond to the original creators of their respective functions in ancient times. Ma Rong considered five of the seven deities—Men, Hu, Zao, Xing, and Zhongliu—as gods associated with the Five Officials (such as Goumang) who were honored alongside sacrifices. Goumang was worshipped with offerings of wood, Zhurong with fire, Gai with metal, Xiu and Xueming with water, and Goulong with earth. The five seasonal sacrifices in the Yue Ling were merely offerings to the Five Elements—metal, wood, water, fire, and earth. Xu Shen said: "In the Yue Ling, the first month of summer is for sacrificing to Zao. The deities worshipped by rulers were ancient figures who had meritorious service toward humanity; they were not merely elderly women." Zhang Xuan said: "For the sacrifice to the five deities, Zao was located outside the eastern side of the temple gate. The rite for sacrificing to Zao involved placing an altar on the ridge of the stove." Zhu Rong was the chief official in charge of fire in ancient times, just as Hou Ji served Yao as a high-ranking official. Nowadays, however, sacrifices are merely conducted on the stove ridge; this is to humble the spirit of a high-ranking official—how narrow-minded and disrespectful! Moreover, the Yue Ling states: "The emperor is Yandi; the deity is Zhu Rong," clearly listed in a higher context and unrelated to Zao worship. To force an association between them disrupts the logical order of the text—how can this be considered meaningful! The Zuozhuan also says: "The spirits of the Five Officials, when alive were high-ranking officials; after death they became noble deities." If one sacrifices to them on a stove ridge, could this be what the Zuozhuan refers to as honoring noble deities! The Te Sheng Kui Shi Li (Rites for Sacrifices with a Single Animal) states: "The shi (officiant) bows and offers sacrifices to the cooking fire," as an expression of gratitude toward those who first began cooking. This shows that the stove deity is worshipped as an elderly woman, expressing the meaning of repaying the merit of the one who first cooked. Zang Wenzhong burned sacrificial wood at the stove, and Confucius criticized him by saying: "He placed offerings in a basin and wine in a jar." If Zhu Rong were truly the deity being worshipped, how could one possibly place such offerings in simple vessels like basins and jars on the stove ridge for sacrifice? Zhang Chong said: "Although the five deities originate from between heaven and earth, embodying yin-yang energies, they are not the true representatives of the four seasons, Five Elements, or proper yin-yang principles. The Yue Ling states that in spring, Hu is worshipped to honor those who first governed the spleen; in autumn, Men is worshipped to honor those responsible for the liver. This follows the appropriate energies and corresponds to what each season governs internally. Moreover, Shiming is a minor deity who resides beneath the star of the same name and oversees human affairs, issuing reprimands for small transgressions." Yuan Zhun wrote Zheng Lun (Correct Discourse), stating: "The officials of the Five Elements were worshipped at Men, Hu, Xing, Zao, and Zhongliou. Zhongliu is the earth deity. The official in charge of fire was worshipped at Zao, yet the official in charge of water was not worshipped at Jing—this is inconsistent. Moreover, how could She (the god of land) be placed among a household's beams and rafters! The Li Ji records that the Son of Heaven worshipped seven deities, marquises five, and high officials three. It mentions that in winter one should worship Xing—this is an error in the record. Jing was not less important than Zao, nor was Xing exclusive to winter. The Baihu Tong says: "In the Yue Ling, Jing is worshipped in winter"—this is correct." Qin Jing said: "Nowadays, the Yue Ling refers to Xing as Jing; thus, in some customs people have abandoned worship of Xing and instead worshipped Jing. Wei Wu revived the ancient rites, worshipping Men, Hu, Jing, Zao, and Zhonglou—these were five deities in total. Gaotang Sheng's Yue Ling (in the middle of winter) records that offerings were made to the Four Seas, wells, and springs. Sacrifices to Jing belonged only to minor categories; it was not included among the five deities. Confucian scholars mistakenly associated Jing with the five, and thus it is appropriate to remove Jing from worship and instead sacrifice to Xing." Fu Xuan said: "Both the seven deities and five deities are mentioned in the Yue Ling, which all state that sacrifices were made to Xing but not Jing. Earlier Confucian scholars have directly written "Jing" instead of "Xing" in the Yue Ling. If one sacrifices to Zao but not Jing, there is an omission in practice and inconsistency in logic; thus, referring to it as Jing seems more appropriate." Also, according to the Baihu Tong: "The son of Gonggong was named Xiu. He loved long-distance travel; wherever boats and carriages reached, or footprints extended, he thoroughly explored them. Thus, he was worshipped as an ancestral deity."
|
| | 宗室助祭... : |
|
| |
|
| | 宗室助祭... : |
後魏孝明帝熙平二年，侍中江陽王繼表言：「臣功緦之內，太祖道武皇帝之後，於臣始是曾孫。道武帝受命之主，配天郊祀，百代不遷。而曾玄之孫，烝嘗之薦，不獲拜於廟庭，霜露之感，闕陪奠於階席。伏見孝文皇帝著令銓衡，取曾祖之服，以為資蔭；而況曾祖為帝，而不見錄。請付外博議，永為定準。」 |
| | In the second year of Xiping reign period of Emperor Xiaoming of Later Wei, Jiangyang Wang Ji, a Shizhong (attendant-in-attendance), submitted a memorial stating: "Within my clan's genealogical records, descendants of Taizu Dao Wu Huangdi are related to me as great-grandsons. Emperor Dao Wu was the sovereign who received his mandate, and he is honored in sacrifices at the suburban altar to Heaven; this veneration shall not be changed for a hundred generations. Yet the great-grandsons and grandsons of these ancestors, who have offered sacrifices with steam and food, cannot be enshrined in the ancestral temple; thus, their descendants feel sorrow on frosty and dewy days but are not allowed to accompany them at the sacrificial platform. I have observed that Emperor Xiaowen issued regulations regarding official appointments, granting eligibility for hereditary privileges to those wearing the mourning attire of their great-grandfathers; How much more so when a great-grandfather was an emperor and yet is not recorded. I respectfully request that this matter be submitted to the outside scholars for extensive discussion, in order to establish a permanent standard."
|
| | 宗室助祭... : |
小學博士王僧奇等議：「按孝經曰：『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，尊王業之初階；二祧不毀者，旌不朽之洪烈。其旁枝遠冑，豈得同四廟之親哉？而四廟者，在當代服屬之內，可以與於子孫之位，若廟毀服盡，豈得同於此例乎？請以四廟為斷。」 |
| | Xiaoxue Bohu Wang Sengqi and others deliberated: "According to the Classic of Filial Piety, it says: 'In the suburban sacrifice, Hou Ji is honored alongside Heaven; in the ancestral rites at the Mingtang Hall, King Wen is honored with the Supreme Deity.'" Thus, the reason why Taizu's veneration remains unchanged is to honor the initial stage of establishing royal authority; the reason why the two tiao ancestors are not removed from worship is to commend their enduring and great achievements. Their collateral branches and distant descendants, how could they be considered as closely related as the four ancestral temples? The four ancestral temples, however, are within the contemporary mourning relationships; they can thus be included among descendants' positions. If a temple is destroyed and the mourning relationship ceases, how could it possibly fall under this precedent? We respectfully request that the matter be decided based on the four ancestral temples."
|
| | 宗室助祭... : |
國子博士李琰之議：「按祭統曰：『有事於太廟，群昭群穆咸在。』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，事無舛駮。」 |
| | lords Guozi Bohu Li Yanzhi deliberated: "According to Jisong, it says: 'When there is a sacrifice at the Grand Ancestral Temple, all the descendants of both lines are present.'" This means that the regulation for enshrining ancestors in the temple should generally follow the provisions regarding kinship. The descendants of ancestral and tiao temples may each be allowed to include their great-grandsons at most. This would allow them to solemnly perform sacrifices on the altar and hall, properly carrying out ancestral rites such as di and yue. In this way, sentiment and reason will be reasonably balanced, and there will be no inconsistencies or contradictions."
|
| | 宗室助祭... : |
侍中任城王澄等奏：「臣等參議，江陽之於今帝也，計親則枝宗三易，數代則廟應四遷，吉凶尚不告聞，拜薦寧容輒與。高祖孝文皇帝聰明玄覽，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。」 |
| | Shizhong Rencheng Wang Cheng and others submitted: "After our deliberation, Jiangyang's relationship to the current emperor is such that in terms of kinship it is a collateral branch with three generations removed; in terms of ancestral temple succession, four transfers are required. Even for matters of auspiciousness or misfortune, they have not been informed, so how could offerings and worship possibly be allowed without authorization." Emperor Gaozu Xiaowen, with his wisdom and profound insight, followed the ancients in establishing policies; he limited accompanying worship to the four ancestral temples and ceased mourning for collateral branches beyond the siren level. This conforms to human sentiment, harmonizing perfectly with it; examining the ritual classics, this matter is difficult to contravene. This is what is meant by wise rulers following established traditions through ancient and modern times without change."
|
| | 宗室助祭... : |
太常少卿元端議：「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。記云『五廟之孫，祖廟未毀』，雖為有所援引，然與朝儀不同。如依其議，匪直太祖曾玄，諸廟子孫，悉應陪列。既無正據，竊謂太廣。」 |
| | Yuan Duan, Shaqing of Taichang, deliberated: "The Rites of Sacrifice state: A king establishes seven ancestral temples. They are called the temple of the father (Kao), the temple of the grandfather (Wangkao), the temple of great-grandfather (Huangkao), the temple for a distinguished ancestor (Xiangkao), and the temple of Taizu, with distant temples designated as tiao, making two in total. The temple for Taizu remains undisturbed due to his great achievements; the two tiao temples remain intact because of their lofty virtue. The principle of successive relocation applies only to the four ancestral temples. The Records state, "the great-grandsons of five ancestral temples, whose ancestor's temple has not yet been destroyed," although this may be cited as a reference, it differs from the court rituals. If we follow their proposal, not only descendants of Taizu's great-grandchildren but also all descendants from other ancestral temples should be allowed to accompany the rites. Since there is no authoritative basis for this, I secretly believe it would be overly broad."
|
| | 宗室助祭... : |
靈太后令曰：「議親律注云：『非唯當代之屬籍，歷謂先帝之五代。』此乃明親親之義篤，骨肉之恩重。公卿眾議，以遠及諸孫太廣致疑，百僚助祭，可得言狹也？祖廟未毀，曾玄不與壇堂之敬，便是宗人之昵，反外於附庸，王族之近，更疏於群辟。先朝舊儀，草刱未定，刊制律憲，垂之不朽。琰之援據，甚允情理。可依所請。」 |
| | The Empress Dowager Ling issued an order: "According to the annotations on the law regarding kinship, it says: 'It is not only about current clan records but also includes five generations of previous emperors.'" This clearly emphasizes the importance of close familial bonds and the depth of affection among blood relatives. The ministers and high officials, in their collective deliberation, questioned that extending to distant descendants is too broad; yet if many officials participate in assisting the sacrifice, can it be said to be narrow? If the ancestral temple has not been destroyed, yet great-grandsons and grandgrandsons are excluded from participation in the altar rites, this would mean that close relatives of the clan are treated as outsiders while being more distant than vassals. It is also inconsistent with treating royal family members closely rather than distancing them from the broader group of officials. The old rituals of previous dynasties were initially drafted and not yet finalized; revising these regulations into laws will establish a lasting legacy. Li Yanzhi's references are well-supported by sentiment and reason. It is acceptable to follow the request."
|
| | 兄弟不合... : |
|
| |
|
| | 兄弟不合... : |
晉武帝泰始四年，詔荀崧紹高祖彧封爵，繼崧兄敬侯。崧父太尉顗以為宜依文帝、景帝，同為一穆。崧顧命子蕤垂範，遵而奉焉。 |
| | In the fourth year of Taishi reign period of Emperor Wu of Jin (268 AD), an edict was issued appointing Xun Song to succeed his ancestor Yu as marquis, continuing the title inherited by Song's elder brother Jing Hou. Xun Song's father, Taiwei Yi, believed that they should follow Wen Di and Jing Di as examples, being considered part of the same generation. Song followed the instructions left by his father Rui, adhering to and honoring them.
|
| | 兄弟不合... : |
東晉元帝建武中，尚書符云：「武皇帝崩，遷征西府君；惠皇帝崩，遷章郡府君；懷帝入廟，當遷潁川府君。」 |
| | In the Jianwu period of Emperor Yuan of East Jin, a Shangshu stated: "After Emperor Wu's death, he was transferred to serve as Lord of the Western Expeditionary Army; "Upon Emperor Hui's death, he was appointed as Lord of Zhang Jun; "When Emperor Huai entered the ancestral temple, he should be enshrined as Lord of Yingchuan."
|
| | 兄弟不合... : |
賀循議：「古者帝各異廟，廟之有室，以象常居，未有二帝共處之義也。如惠懷二主，兄弟同位，於禘祫之禮，會於太祖，自應同列異坐而正昭穆。至於常居之室，不可以尊卑之分，義不可黷故也。昔魯夏父弗忌躋僖公於閔上，春秋謂之逆祀。僖公，閔之庶兄，閔公先立，嘗為君臣故也。左氏傳曰：『子雖齊聖，不先父食。』懷帝之在惠帝代，居藩積年，君臣之分也；正位東宮，父子之義也。雖同歸昭穆，尊卑之分與閔僖不異，共室褻黷，非殊尊卑之禮。以古義論之，愚謂未必如有司所列，惠帝之崩，當已遷章郡府君，又以懷帝入廟，當遷潁川府君，此是兩帝兄弟各遷一祖也。又，主之迭毀，以代為正，下代既升，則上代稍遷，代序之義也。若兄弟相代，則共是一代，昭穆位同，不得兼毀二廟，禮之常例也。又殷之盤庚，不序陽甲之廟，而上繼先君，以弟不繼兄故也。既非所繼，則廟應別立。由此言之，是惠帝應別立，上祖宜兼遷也。故漢之光武，不入成帝之廟，而上繼元帝，義取於此。今惠懷二帝，不得不上居太廟，潁川未遷，見位餘八。非祀之常，不得於七室之外假立一神位。」循又議曰：「殷人六廟，比有兄弟四人襲為君者，便當上毀四廟乎？如此四代之親盡，無復祖禰之神矣。又按殷紀，成湯以下至於帝乙，父子兄弟相繼為君，合十二代，而正代唯六。易乾鑿度曰：『殷帝乙，六代王也。』以此言之，明不數兄弟為正代。」 |
| | He Xun argued: "In ancient times, each emperor had a separate temple. The rooms within the temples symbolized their permanent dwellings; there was no precedent for two emperors to share the same space." "If Emperors Hui and Huai, being brothers of equal rank, were to participate in the Di or Xia offerings, they would gather at the Taizu's shrine. Naturally, they should be listed together but seated separately according to their proper ancestral order." "As for the permanent shrines, it is inappropriate to distinguish between ranks of respect or inferiority; this is because such a practice would violate proper ritual principles." "In the past, Lu Xiufu did not avoid elevating Duke Xi above Duke Min; this was condemned by Chunqiu as an act of sacrilegious worship." Duke Xi, being the younger brother of Duke Min, was a commoner-born elder sibling. Duke Min had been enthroned first; thus, they once held the relationship of ruler and subject. The Zuo Zhuan says: "Even if a son is as wise and virtuous as possible, he must not precede his father in ancestral worship." Emperor Huai's years of residence at the fief during Emperor Hui's reign established a relationship of ruler and subject; "His official position as Crown Prince represented the filial bond between father and son." Although they share the same ancestral order, their distinction in rank is no different from that of Duke Min and Duke Xi. Sharing a shrine would be disrespectful and inappropriate for distinguishing between ranks. According to ancient principles, I believe it is not necessarily as the officials have listed. Upon Emperor Hui's death, one should already have transferred his title to Lord Zhang Jun; and upon Emperor Huai entering the temple, another transfer should be made to Lord Yingchuan. This would mean that two emperors, brothers, each moved a different ancestor. Moreover, the succession of ancestral enshrinement is determined by generations; when a later generation ascends to the temple, an earlier generation may be slightly moved—this reflects the principle of generational order. If brothers succeed each other, they belong to the same generation; their ancestral positions are equal and identical. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to dismantle two shrines simultaneously—this is a standard practice in ritual. Moreover, during the Yin dynasty, Pan Geng did not follow Yangjia's temple order but instead continued with that of his predecessor. This was because a younger brother does not succeed an elder brother in ancestral rites. Since he did not inherit the succession, then a separate temple should be established for him. From this reasoning, Emperor Hui should have a separate shrine, and his ancestral lineage should also include the appropriate transfers of titles. Therefore, Emperor Guangwu of Han did not enter the temple of Emperor Cheng but instead traced his lineage back to Emperor Yuan; this principle is derived from that example. Now, Emperors Hui and Huai must necessarily be enshrined in the Grand Ancestral Temple. Since Lord Yingchuan has not yet been transferred, there are still eight remaining positions available. "This is not a regular practice in ancestral rites; it would be improper to establish an additional shrine outside the seven designated rooms." Xun further argued: "The Yin dynasty had six ancestral temples. If four brothers succeeded each other as rulers, would it then be appropriate to dismantle four shrines? "If so, the ancestral bonds of these four generations would be severed, and there would no longer be any deified ancestors or fathers." Furthermore, according to the Yin records, from Cheng Tang down to King Diyi, fathers and brothers succeeded each other as kings for a total of twelve generations, but only six were considered legitimate in terms of ancestral succession. The Yiqian Zao Du said: "King Diyi of Yin was the king of the sixth generation." From this, it is clear that brothers are not counted as legitimate generations in succession."
|
| | 兄弟不合... : |
大唐開元四年，太常卿姜皎及禮官太常博士陳貞節、蘇獻等上七廟昭穆議曰：「禮，天子三昭三穆，與太祖之廟為七，而太祖常存，聖人之大典也。若禮名不正，則奠獻無序矣。謹按中宗孝和皇帝在廟，七室已滿。今太上皇是中宗之弟，以六月升遐，甫及仲冬，禮當遷祔。但兄弟入廟，古則有焉，遞遷之禮，昭穆須正。謹按晉太常賀循議：『兄弟不相為後也。故殷之盤庚，不序於陽甲，而上繼於先君；漢之光武，不嗣於孝成，而上承於元帝。』又曰：『晉惠帝無後，懷帝承統，懷帝自繼於代祖，而不繼於惠帝。其惠帝當同陽甲、孝成，別出為廟。』又曰：『若兄弟相代，則共是一代，昭穆位同，不可兼毀二廟，此蓋禮之常例。』荀卿子曰『有天下者事七世』，謂從禰以上。尊者統廣，故恩及遠祖。若旁容兄弟，上毀祖考，此則天子有不得全事七代之義也。孝和皇帝有中興之功，而無後嗣，請同殷之陽甲、漢之成帝，出為別廟，時祭不虧，大祫之辰，合食太祖。奉睿宗神主升祔太廟，上繼高宗，則昭穆永貞，獻祼長序，禮也。此萬代之典，敢不颺言。」從之。改造中宗廟於太廟之西。 |
| | In the fourth year of Kaiyuan reign period of Da Tang (716 AD), Tai Chang Qing Jiang Jiao, along with ritual officials Tai Chang bo shi Chen Zhenjie and Su Xian, submitted a proposal on the ancestral order for the seven temples: "According to rites, an emperor should have three generations of descendants in the 'Zhao' position and three in the 'Mu' position, together forming seven shrines when combined with that of the Taizu. The shrine of the Taizu remains permanently enshrined; this is a great ritual established by sages." "If the names in the rites are not properly assigned, then offerings and rituals will become disordered." We carefully examined that Emperor Zhongzong Xiaohe is already enshrined in the temple, making the seven rooms fully occupied. Now that the Taishang Huang is Emperor Zhongzong's younger brother, and he passed away in June, barely reaching mid-winter, it would be appropriate according to rites to transfer his shrine for enshrinement. However, the enshrinement of brothers in ancestral temples has historical precedents; thus, the order of transfer and their positions must be properly assigned according to Zhao and Mu. We carefully refer to He Xun's proposal from Tai Chang of Jin: "Brothers should not succeed each other in ancestral rites." "Therefore, Pan Geng of Yin did not follow the order after Yangjia but instead traced back to an earlier ancestor; "Han Guangwu did not succeed Emperor Xiaocheng, but instead inherited the lineage from Emperor Yuan."' It also states: "Emperor Hui of Jin had no heir, and Emperor Huai inherited the throne. Emperor Huai naturally succeeded the Daizu rather than Emperor Hui." "Therefore, Emperor Hui should be treated like Yangjia and Xiaocheng, with a separate temple established for him."' It also says: "If brothers succeed each other, then they belong to the same generation. Their positions in Zhao and Mu are identical; thus, it is inappropriate to dismantle two temples at once—this is a standard principle of ritual."' Xunzi said: "He who rules the world should honor seven generations," meaning from his father and above. The respect for higher ancestors is extensive, so their benevolence extends to distant forebears. If brothers are enshrined alongside the main lineage, and ancestral shrines above them must be destroyed, this would mean that an emperor cannot fully honor seven generations—this is contrary to ritual principles. Emperor Xiaohe has the merit of restoring the dynasty but no descendants. We respectfully request that he be treated similarly to Yangjia of Yin and Emperor Cheng of Han, with a separate temple built for him. Regular sacrifices should not be neglected, and during major ancestral gatherings, his spirit may join the Taizu in offerings. Presenting Emperor Ruizong's spirit tablet to be enshrined in the Taizu Temple, continuing the lineage back to Gaozong, will ensure that Zhao and Mu remain permanently correct, sacrifices proceed in proper order, and this is in accordance with ritual. This is a model for all generations; how could we dare to remain silent?" The proposal was accepted. They rebuilt Emperor Zhongzong's temple to the west of the Taizu Temple.
|
| | 兄弟不合... : |
時河南人孫平子上封事曰：「臣竊見今年正月，太廟毀，此乃躋聖賢之所致也。臣按左傳云：『君薨，卒哭而祔，祔而作主，特祀於主，烝嘗禘於廟。』今日有違於此也。昔魯文公二年，宗伯弗忌躋僖公於閔公上，後致太室壞，春秋異而書之，今日有同彼也。君子以弗忌為失禮。又按五行志書，僖公雖閔公之兄，嘗為閔公臣，臣在君上，是為失禮，遂令太室壞。且兄臣於弟，猶不可躋之弟上，弟臣於兄，可躋弟於兄上耶！昔莊公三十二年薨，閔公二年吉禘。自薨至禘，尚有二年，春秋猶非之失禮，況夏崩冬禘，不亦太速乎！諸議云太廟中央曰太室，尊高象也。魯自是陵夷，將墜周公之祀。以此斷之，即太廟毀，亦今日將欲陵夷之象，墜先帝之祀也。斯亦上天祐我唐國，乃降此災。以陛下去年禘孝和於別室，吉祭於太廟。未祭孝和，先祭太上皇，此乃與僖閔事同，先臣後君也。昔躋兄弟上，今弟先兄祭，過有甚於古也；昔登臣君上，今亦如之，事豈不同耶？昔太室壞，今聖朝太廟毀，變豈不同耶？若以兄弟同昭，則不合出致別廟；若以臣子一例，則孝和合進為昭。昔武氏篡國十五餘年，孝和挺劍龍飛，再興唐祚，此則有大功於天下也。今禘於別室，是廢先聖之訓，棄中興之功，下君上臣，輕長重幼。昔晉太康五年，宣帝廟地陷梁折。八年正月，太廟毀陷，改作殿，築階下及泉。更營新廟，遠致名材，雜以銅柱，自八年九月造，至十年四月乃成。十一月，又梁折毀壞。以此言之，天降災譴，非枯朽也。晉不知過，天下分崩，王室大亂。特望天恩，少垂詳察，速召宰相以下謀議，移孝和入廟，何必苦違禮典，以同魯、晉哉！」詔下禮官議。蘇獻固執前議。平子口辨，所稱咸有經據。蘇頲為宰相，獻即頲從祖兄。平子竟被貶為康州都城尉，至任，尋卒。 |
| | At that time, Sun Pingzi from Henan submitted a sealed memorial stating: "I have secretly observed that in this year's first month, the Taizu Temple was destroyed. This is due to the elevation of sages and virtuous men." I refer to the Zuo Zhuan, which says: "When a ruler passes away, after the mourning period ends, his shrine is established. A spirit tablet is then made, and special sacrifices are offered at the tablet, while regular ancestral rites such as zeng, chang, and di take place in the temple." Today's actions contradict this. In the second year of Duke Wen's reign in Lu, Zongbo Foji promoted Duke Xi above Duke Min. Later this led to damage at the main ancestral shrine; Chunqiu recorded it as an unusual event. Today's situation is similar to that. The virtuous would regard Foji's actions as a violation of ritual propriety. Furthermore, according to records in the Five Elements annals, although Duke Xi was the elder brother of Duke Min, he had once been a subject of Duke Min. To place a subject above his ruler is considered an act of impropriety, which eventually led to the destruction of the main shrine. Moreover, if an elder brother serves as a subject for his younger brother, it is still inappropriate to place him above the younger ruler. How then could one justify placing a younger brother who served as a subject of his elder brother above that elder ruler?! In the thirty-second year of Duke Zhuang's reign, he passed away; in the second year of Duke Min's reign, a proper Di sacrifice was conducted. From his death to the Di offering, there were still two years; Chunqiu still criticized this as a breach of ritual. How much more so now, when the mourning period ended in summer and the Di sacrifice was held in winter—was that not far too hasty! The various proposals state that the central chamber of the Taizu Temple is called Tai Shi, symbolizing supreme reverence. Since then, Lu gradually declined and was on the verge of abandoning the ancestral rites of Duke Zhou. Judging from this, the destruction of the Taizu Temple also indicates a sign that our dynasty is about to decline and abandon the ancestral rites of previous emperors. This is also Heaven's way of protecting our Tang state, by sending this calamity as a warning. Last year, Your Majesty conducted the Di sacrifice for Emperor Xiaohe in a separate chamber and performed proper offerings at the Taizu Temple. Offering sacrifices to Emperor Xiaohe had not yet occurred, but the sacrifice for Taishang Huang was conducted first. This is similar to the case of Duke Xi and Duke Min—honoring a former subject before his ruler. In ancient times, placing an elder brother above was considered improper; now, the younger brother is honored first in sacrifice—this transgression surpasses that of antiquity. In the past, placing a subject above his ruler was condemned; now it is done again—how can these events not be considered identical? In the past, the main shrine collapsed; today, the Taizu Temple of Your Majesty's sacred dynasty has been destroyed—how can these changes not be regarded as similar? If brothers are considered part of the same Zhao generation, then it would not be appropriate to establish a separate temple for one; "If we treat subjects and descendants equally, then Emperor Xiaohe should also be elevated as part of the Zhao generation." In the past, Lady Wu usurped the throne for over fifteen years. Emperor Xiaohe rose like a dragon with his sword and restored the Tang dynasty—this was a great contribution to the world. Now, conducting the Di sacrifice in a separate chamber is abandoning the teachings of past sages, disregarding the merit of restoring the dynasty, honoring subjects before rulers, and undervaluing elders while overvaluing juniors. In the fifth year of Taikang reign period of Jin (284 AD), the ground beneath the temple of Emperor Xuan collapsed and beams broke. In January of the eighth year, the Taizu Temple collapsed into a sinkhole; it was rebuilt with new halls and steps constructed down to the water level. A new temple was built, with famous materials sourced from afar and copper pillars added for reinforcement. Construction began in September of the eighth year and was completed in April of the tenth year. In November, beams collapsed again, causing further damage. From this, we can see that Heaven has sent calamities and warnings; it is not merely due to decay or aging structures. Jin did not recognize its faults, leading to the fragmentation of the realm and great chaos in the royal court. I humbly hope for the grace of Heaven, that Your Majesty will carefully consider this matter and quickly summon chancellors and officials to deliberate. Why must we stubbornly defy ritual principles and follow the mistakes of Lu and Jin?!" An edict was issued, ordering the ritual officials to discuss the matter. Su Xian firmly adhered to his previous proposal. 𝑙 Pingzi argued eloquently, and all of his claims were supported by classical references. Su Ting was a chancellor; Xian was Su Ting's cousin from the same clan. Pingzi was ultimately demoted to Du Cheng Wei of Kang Zhou, and upon assuming his post, he soon died.
|
| | 兄弟俱封... : |
|
| |
|
| | 兄弟俱封... : |
晉中山王睦上言乞依六蓼之祀皋陶，杞鄫之祀相立廟。按睦，譙王之弟，兄弟俱封，今求各立禰廟，下太常議。 |
| | The Jin Zhongshan Wang Mu made a petition requesting that, following the example of the sacrifices to Gao Tao at Liu Liao and those to Xiang for the states of Qi and Zeng, a temple be established. Mu was the younger brother of Qiao Wang; both brothers were enfeoffed, and now they requested that each establish a separate ancestral temple. The matter was referred to Taichang for deliberation.
|
| | 兄弟俱封... : |
博士祭酒劉熹等議：「王制諸侯五廟，是則立始祖，謂嫡統承重一人，得立祖禰之廟，群弟雖並為諸侯始封之君，未得立廟也。唯今正統當立祖廟，中山不得並也。後代中山乃得為睦立廟，為後代子孫之始祖耳。」 |
| | Doctor Jiu Liu Xi and others deliberated: "According to the system of kings, feudal lords have five ancestral temples. This means that only the founding ancestor is established; it refers to the legitimate line succeeding as one person, who alone may establish an ancestral temple for the founder and ancestors. Although their brothers were also enfeoffed as feudal lords at the beginning, they did not obtain the right to establish a temple." Only now should the legitimate line establish an ancestral temple; Zhongshan cannot be established alongside it. "Later generations of Zhongshan may establish a temple for Mu, but only as the founding ancestor for their descendants."
|
| | 兄弟俱封... : |
司徒荀顗議以為，宜各得立廟。時詔從顗議。又詔曰：「禮，諸侯二昭二穆，與太祖之廟而五，太祖即始封君也，其廟不毀。前詔以譙王、中山王父非諸侯，尊同，禮不相厭，故欲令各得祭以申私恩也。然考之典制，事不經通。若安平王諸子並封，皆得立廟祭禰，親盡數終，其廟當毀，無故下食支庶之國，猥更隨昭穆而廢，非尊祖敬宗之義也。其如前奏施行。」 |
| | Situ Xun Yi argued that each should be allowed to establish an ancestral temple. At the time, the imperial edict followed Xun Yi's opinion. Another edict stated: "According to rites, feudal lords have two zhaos and two mus, together with the temple of the Taizu, making five. The Taizu is the originally enfeoffed ruler; his temple shall not be destroyed." The previous edict considered that the fathers of Qiao Wang and Zhongshan Wang were not feudal lords, their status was equal, and according to rites they did not conflict with each other; therefore, it wished to allow them each to conduct sacrifices in order to express private filial piety. However, upon examining the established regulations, this matter does not conform to precedent. If the sons of Anping Wang were all enfeoffed and each allowed to establish a temple for ancestral sacrifices, then when their lineages ended after several generations, those temples should be destroyed. It would be unreasonable to have them continue offering sacrifices to collateral branches without cause; arbitrarily discontinuing these according to zhaomu order is not in accordance with the principle of honoring ancestors and respecting the clan head. "Follow the previous proposal for implementation."
|
| | 兄弟俱封... : |
虞喜曰：「譙與中山俱始封之君，父非諸侯，尊同體敵，無所為厭，並立禰廟，恩情兩伸，荀議是也。詔書所喻，恐非禮意。今上祭四代，自以諸侯位尊，得申其恩，祭及四代，不論毀且不毀，為始封之君，則譙王雖承父統，禰廟亦在應毀之例，不得長立也。又安平獻王自為始封，諸子雖別封，而同為諸侯，諸侯尊同，故不復各立，此則公子為諸侯不得立禰廟也。而譙王父非諸侯，使與諸侯同列，不得並祭。或難曰：『禮，庶子不祭禰，明其宗也。若俱得祭父，則並統二嫡，非明其宗也。』答曰：『若宗子與庶子位俱為士，禰已有廟，無為重設，與公子為諸侯不立禰廟同也。若尊卑不同，則己恩得施，並祭無嫌也。禮，大夫三廟，太祖百代不遷者也。使大夫之後有庶統為諸侯者，當上祭四代，四代之前不得復祭。若當奪宗，則大夫太祖為廢其祀。以此推之，明得兼祭。一者恩得伸，隨代而毀；一者繼太祖百代不替也。』」 |
| | Yu Xi said: "Qiao and Zhongshan were both originally enfeoffed rulers. Their fathers were not feudal lords; their status was equal with no hierarchy, so there is nothing to conflict with. Establishing ancestral temples for both allows filial affection to be expressed equally on both sides. Xun's opinion is correct." The imperial edict's explanation, I fear, does not conform with the meaning of rites. Now, the emperor sacrifices to four generations. This is because his position as a feudal lord is esteemed enough to allow him to express filial piety by sacrificing to four generations; whether or not these temples are destroyed is irrelevant. As for those who were originally enfeoffed rulers, Qiao Wang, although he inherited from his father's line, the ancestral temple should still fall under the category of those that should be destroyed and cannot remain permanently established. Moreover, Anping Xian Wang himself was the originally enfeoffed. Although his sons were separately enfeoffed, they were all feudal lords of equal status; since their ranks are the same, it is no longer appropriate for each to establish a separate temple. This indicates that when a marquis becomes a feudal lord, he may not establish an ancestral temple. However, Qiao Wang's father was not a feudal lord; allowing him to be ranked equally with feudal lords and prohibiting parallel sacrifices is inappropriate. Some may object: "According to rites, a collateral son does not sacrifice to his father's ancestral temple, in order to clarify the main line of descent." "If both are allowed to sacrifice to their father, then there would be two legitimate lines coexisting, which is not clarifying the main line of descent." The reply is: "If both the main-line son and collateral son hold the rank of shi, and an ancestral temple for their father already exists, there is no need to establish another. This situation is equivalent to a marquis becoming a feudal lord without establishing an ancestral temple." "If their ranks differ, then filial affection may be expressed by the lower-ranking one; conducting parallel sacrifices in this case would not be inappropriate." According to rites, a doctor has three ancestral temples, and the temple of Taizu remains undisturbed for a hundred generations. If descendants of a doctor have collateral lines that become feudal lords, they should sacrifice to four generations above them; sacrifices for generations before the fourth are no longer permitted. If the main line is deprived of its status, then the doctor's Taizu would have his sacrifices discontinued. By this reasoning, it becomes clear that simultaneous sacrifices are permissible. One reason is that filial affection can be expressed and the temples may be destroyed in subsequent generations; the other is to continue the sacrifices for Taizu without interruption for a hundred generations. ""
|
| | 兄弟俱封... : |
徐禪非荀是虞曰：「愚等謂尊祖敬宗，禮之所同。若列國秩同，則祭歸嫡子，所以明宗也；嫡輕庶重，禮有兼享，所以致孝也。今譙王為長，既享用重祿，中山之祀，無以加焉，二國兩祭，禮無所取，詔書禁之是也。詔稱安平獻王諸子並封，不可各全立廟，是荀暢之義美矣。然愚謂中山父非諸侯，而祭更闕疑如禮意也。虞徵士答衛將軍虞喜以嫡為大夫，庶為諸侯，諸侯禮重，應各立廟，禪謂為允矣。喜曰尊同體敵，恩情兩伸，諸兄弟俱始為諸侯，命數無降。今士庶始封之君，尚得上祭四代，不拘於嫡，以貴異之。況已尊同五等，更嫌不得其均用豐禮，並祭四代，所以寵之，理非替宗。此蓋先王以孝理天下，肅恭明祀之達義也。昔周公有王功，魯立文王之廟，鄭有平王東遷之勳，特令祖厲，是為榮之，非計享之祭在於周室，魯鄭豈得過之哉！」 |
| | Xu Chan, disagreeing with Xun and agreeing with Yu, said: "We believe that honoring ancestors and respecting the main line are principles shared by rites. If feudal states hold equal ranks, then sacrifices should be conducted by the legitimate son; this is how the main lineage is clarified; if the legitimate line is of lesser status and the collateral line holds greater rank, rites allow for combined sacrifices; this is to express filial devotion. Now, Qiao Wang is the elder; he already enjoys a high rank and generous emoluments. The sacrifices of Zhongshan cannot surpass this. Conducting sacrifices in both states simultaneously has no basis in rites, so the imperial edict prohibiting it is correct. The edict states that since the sons of Anping Xian Wang were all enfeoffed, it is not permissible for each to fully establish an ancestral temple—this reflects Xun Chang's interpretation and is commendable. Yet we believe that since Zhongshan's father was not a feudal lord, the omission of sacrifices for him aligns with the intent of rites. Yu Zhengshi, in his reply to General Wei and General Yu Xi, stated that if the legitimate son is a doctor and the collateral son becomes a feudal lord, since the feudal lord holds greater ritual status, each should establish their own temple. Chan's view on this matter is deemed appropriate. Yu Xi said: "Their ranks are equal and their status comparable; filial affection for both should be expressed. Since all brothers were originally enfeoffed as feudal lords, the imperial decree did not lower any of them." Now, even a shi or collateral son who is originally enfeoffed may sacrifice to four generations above him; this practice is not restricted by the legitimacy of birth but depends on their rank and status. Moreover, since they have already been granted equal status among the five ranks of nobility, it would be inappropriate to deny them an equitable and generous ritual treatment. Sacrificing to four generations for both is a way to honor them; this does not contradict the principle of maintaining the main lineage. This reflects how ancient kings governed the world through filial piety, and it embodies the profound meaning of solemnly conducting clear ancestral sacrifices. In the past, Duke of Zhou had meritorious service as a king; thus, Lu established a temple for King Wen. The state of Zheng contributed to King Ping's eastern relocation and was specially allowed to venerate their ancestor Li, which was an honor bestowed upon them. This did not depend on whether sacrifices were conducted within the royal house of Zhou—could Lu or Zheng possibly surpass this?!"
|
| | 兄弟俱封... : |
宋庾蔚之謂：大夫、士，尊不相絕，故必宗嫡而立宗，承別子之嫡謂之宗子，收族合食糾正一宗者也。故特加齊縗三月之服。至四小宗則服無所加，唯昆弟之為人後，姊妹雖出，一降而已。曾子問「宗子為士，庶子為大夫，以上牲祭於宗子之家」。鄭云「貴祿重宗也」。小記「庶子不祭禰者，明其宗也」。至諸侯尊絕大夫，不得以太牢祭卿大夫之家，是以經無諸侯為宗服文，則知諸侯奪宗各自祭，不復就宗祭也。又諸侯別子封為國君，亦得各祭四代。何以知其然？諸侯既不就祭，人子不可終身不得享其祖考，居然別祭四代。或疑神不兩享，舉魯鄭祭文祖厲足以塞矣。徐以弟祿卑於兄，不得兩祭；虞以為可兩祭，由於父非諸侯：又未善也。 |
| | Song Yu Weizhi said: "Doctors and shi are of similar rank, so their status is not completely distinct. Therefore, it is essential to establish a main line by following the legitimate son. The legitimate son who inherits from a collateral branch is called the zongzi; this serves to gather the clan, unite ancestral sacrifices, and correct the unity of one lineage." Therefore, they are specially granted the mourning attire of qicai for three months. As for the four minor lineages, no additional mourning rites are added; only when a younger brother becomes an heir to another lineage is there any adjustment. Even if sisters have been married out, their mourning rank is reduced by one level at most. Zengzi asked: "If the zongzi is a shi and the collateral son becomes a doctor, may he offer superior sacrificial offerings at the home of the zongzi?" Zheng said: "This is to honor rank while still respecting the main lineage." A minor record states: "Collateral sons do not sacrifice to their fathers' ancestral temples; this clarifies the main lineage." When feudal lords hold a rank far above that of doctors, they may not offer the highest sacrifice (tai lao) at the homes of ministers or doctors. Therefore, the classics do not mention feudal lords observing mourning rites for their main line; this indicates that when feudal lords lose their status as zongzi, they conduct sacrifices independently and no longer participate in ancestral sacrifices within the main lineage. Moreover, if a collateral son of a feudal lord is enfeoffed as a national ruler, he may also conduct sacrifices to four generations individually. How do we know this? Since feudal lords no longer participate in the ancestral sacrifices of their main lineage, as descendants they cannot be deprived for life of honoring their ancestors. Thus, it is natural that they conduct separate sacrifices to four generations. Some may question whether the spirits can be honored in two places at once; however, citing Lu and Zheng's sacrifices to their ancestors Wen and Li is sufficient to resolve this doubt. Xu argued that since the younger brother's rank was lower than his elder brother's, he could not conduct sacrifices in both places; Yu believed that conducting two sets of sacrifices was permissible because their father was not a feudal lord. However, this view is still incomplete.
|