《春秋》「躋僖公」解

Research output: Journal PublicationsJournal Article (refereed)

Abstract

According to Chunqiu春秋, under the rule of Duke Wen文 of Lu魯, there was a violation of the order of sacrifice, in which Duke Xi僖 was unjustly advanced to the position of Duke Min閔 during a sacrificial ceremony . The details of the incident were recorded in Zuozhuan左傳 and Guoyu國語. The present paper examines the various views of previous studies and clarifies a number of unresolved issues regarding the nature of zhaomu昭穆 and sacrificial practices in the Spring and Autumn period. The key to position is to distinguish ‘advancing the position of Duke Xi’ from ‘the proper position of Duke Xi’. Zuozhuan did not mention zhaomu in this connection, and according to Guoyu it was the placement of Duke Xi above Duke Min that Zongyousi宗有司 referred to as ‘a violation of zhaomu’. It is incorrect, however, to deduce from it that Duke Min and Duke Xi should belong to different zhaomu. The original zhaomu protocol prescribes that father and son should belong to different zhaomu, while brothers share the same zhaomu. Following proper etiquette, since Duke Min was a younger brother of Duke Xi, they should have the same zhaomu. On the other hand, Duke Xi inherited his dukedom from Duke Min, who should therefore have a higher position than Duke Xi. It was Xiafufuji夏父弗忌 who misunderstood the true nature of zhaomu, and placed Duke Min and Duke Xi onto different zhaomu according to his own judgement. All in all, Xiafufuji indeed violated the order of sacrifice by altering the zhaomu of Duke Min and Duke, but this should not be confused with the issue of whether or not Duke Min and Duke Xi should share the same zhaomu - a fallacy committed by previous studies. According to Zuozhuan and Guoyu, there is an irony in the inclusion of this incident in Chunqiu. A violation of sacrificial order was unacceptable in Zhou周 etiquette, but Shang商oracular writings reveal that similar incidents occurred regularly during the Shang period. We are perhaps witnessing in Chunqiu relics of ancient etiquette in transformation.
Original languageChinese (Traditional)
Pages (from-to)293-312
Number of pages20
Journal東方文化 = Journal of Oriental Studies
Volume34
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jan 1996

Cite this

@article{b83d21882c7345d6b786fe40de39fda3,
title = "《春秋》「躋僖公」解",
abstract = "According to Chunqiu春秋, under the rule of Duke Wen文 of Lu魯, there was a violation of the order of sacrifice, in which Duke Xi僖 was unjustly advanced to the position of Duke Min閔 during a sacrificial ceremony . The details of the incident were recorded in Zuozhuan左傳 and Guoyu國語. The present paper examines the various views of previous studies and clarifies a number of unresolved issues regarding the nature of zhaomu昭穆 and sacrificial practices in the Spring and Autumn period. The key to position is to distinguish ‘advancing the position of Duke Xi’ from ‘the proper position of Duke Xi’. Zuozhuan did not mention zhaomu in this connection, and according to Guoyu it was the placement of Duke Xi above Duke Min that Zongyousi宗有司 referred to as ‘a violation of zhaomu’. It is incorrect, however, to deduce from it that Duke Min and Duke Xi should belong to different zhaomu. The original zhaomu protocol prescribes that father and son should belong to different zhaomu, while brothers share the same zhaomu. Following proper etiquette, since Duke Min was a younger brother of Duke Xi, they should have the same zhaomu. On the other hand, Duke Xi inherited his dukedom from Duke Min, who should therefore have a higher position than Duke Xi. It was Xiafufuji夏父弗忌 who misunderstood the true nature of zhaomu, and placed Duke Min and Duke Xi onto different zhaomu according to his own judgement. All in all, Xiafufuji indeed violated the order of sacrifice by altering the zhaomu of Duke Min and Duke, but this should not be confused with the issue of whether or not Duke Min and Duke Xi should share the same zhaomu - a fallacy committed by previous studies. According to Zuozhuan and Guoyu, there is an irony in the inclusion of this incident in Chunqiu. A violation of sacrificial order was unacceptable in Zhou周 etiquette, but Shang商oracular writings reveal that similar incidents occurred regularly during the Shang period. We are perhaps witnessing in Chunqiu relics of ancient etiquette in transformation.",
author = "許子濱",
year = "1996",
month = "1",
day = "1",
language = "Chinese (Traditional)",
volume = "34",
pages = "293--312",
journal = "東方文化 = Journal of Oriental Studies",
issn = "0022-331X",
publisher = "Hong Kong University Press",

}

《春秋》「躋僖公」解. / 許子濱.

In: 東方文化 = Journal of Oriental Studies, Vol. 34, 01.01.1996, p. 293-312.

Research output: Journal PublicationsJournal Article (refereed)

TY - JOUR

T1 - 《春秋》「躋僖公」解

AU - 許子濱, null

PY - 1996/1/1

Y1 - 1996/1/1

N2 - According to Chunqiu春秋, under the rule of Duke Wen文 of Lu魯, there was a violation of the order of sacrifice, in which Duke Xi僖 was unjustly advanced to the position of Duke Min閔 during a sacrificial ceremony . The details of the incident were recorded in Zuozhuan左傳 and Guoyu國語. The present paper examines the various views of previous studies and clarifies a number of unresolved issues regarding the nature of zhaomu昭穆 and sacrificial practices in the Spring and Autumn period. The key to position is to distinguish ‘advancing the position of Duke Xi’ from ‘the proper position of Duke Xi’. Zuozhuan did not mention zhaomu in this connection, and according to Guoyu it was the placement of Duke Xi above Duke Min that Zongyousi宗有司 referred to as ‘a violation of zhaomu’. It is incorrect, however, to deduce from it that Duke Min and Duke Xi should belong to different zhaomu. The original zhaomu protocol prescribes that father and son should belong to different zhaomu, while brothers share the same zhaomu. Following proper etiquette, since Duke Min was a younger brother of Duke Xi, they should have the same zhaomu. On the other hand, Duke Xi inherited his dukedom from Duke Min, who should therefore have a higher position than Duke Xi. It was Xiafufuji夏父弗忌 who misunderstood the true nature of zhaomu, and placed Duke Min and Duke Xi onto different zhaomu according to his own judgement. All in all, Xiafufuji indeed violated the order of sacrifice by altering the zhaomu of Duke Min and Duke, but this should not be confused with the issue of whether or not Duke Min and Duke Xi should share the same zhaomu - a fallacy committed by previous studies. According to Zuozhuan and Guoyu, there is an irony in the inclusion of this incident in Chunqiu. A violation of sacrificial order was unacceptable in Zhou周 etiquette, but Shang商oracular writings reveal that similar incidents occurred regularly during the Shang period. We are perhaps witnessing in Chunqiu relics of ancient etiquette in transformation.

AB - According to Chunqiu春秋, under the rule of Duke Wen文 of Lu魯, there was a violation of the order of sacrifice, in which Duke Xi僖 was unjustly advanced to the position of Duke Min閔 during a sacrificial ceremony . The details of the incident were recorded in Zuozhuan左傳 and Guoyu國語. The present paper examines the various views of previous studies and clarifies a number of unresolved issues regarding the nature of zhaomu昭穆 and sacrificial practices in the Spring and Autumn period. The key to position is to distinguish ‘advancing the position of Duke Xi’ from ‘the proper position of Duke Xi’. Zuozhuan did not mention zhaomu in this connection, and according to Guoyu it was the placement of Duke Xi above Duke Min that Zongyousi宗有司 referred to as ‘a violation of zhaomu’. It is incorrect, however, to deduce from it that Duke Min and Duke Xi should belong to different zhaomu. The original zhaomu protocol prescribes that father and son should belong to different zhaomu, while brothers share the same zhaomu. Following proper etiquette, since Duke Min was a younger brother of Duke Xi, they should have the same zhaomu. On the other hand, Duke Xi inherited his dukedom from Duke Min, who should therefore have a higher position than Duke Xi. It was Xiafufuji夏父弗忌 who misunderstood the true nature of zhaomu, and placed Duke Min and Duke Xi onto different zhaomu according to his own judgement. All in all, Xiafufuji indeed violated the order of sacrifice by altering the zhaomu of Duke Min and Duke, but this should not be confused with the issue of whether or not Duke Min and Duke Xi should share the same zhaomu - a fallacy committed by previous studies. According to Zuozhuan and Guoyu, there is an irony in the inclusion of this incident in Chunqiu. A violation of sacrificial order was unacceptable in Zhou周 etiquette, but Shang商oracular writings reveal that similar incidents occurred regularly during the Shang period. We are perhaps witnessing in Chunqiu relics of ancient etiquette in transformation.

UR - http://commons.ln.edu.hk/sw_master/877

M3 - Journal Article (refereed)

VL - 34

SP - 293

EP - 312

JO - 東方文化 = Journal of Oriental Studies

JF - 東方文化 = Journal of Oriental Studies

SN - 0022-331X

ER -