|
|
|
| "The Main Line Grandson Bears the Burden": Zhu Xi’s Proposal for Emperor Ningzong's Mourning Rites and the History of the Qingyuan Proscription |
| Wang Yu |
| The Research Centre of Zhelogy, Zhejiang Academy of Social Sciences, Hangzhou 310007, China |
|
|
|
|
Abstract The Qingyuan Proscription (庆元党禁) that took place during the early period (1194-1207) of Emperor Ningzong’s reign was an important historical event in the political history of the Southern Song dynasty. It is relevant to the complicated topics of that history, such as the relative powers of the prime minister and emperor, the relationship between the retired emperor and the emperor, and the relationship between the affinal kin clan and scholar-officials. Meanwhile, the proscription provides a classic case study and critical perspective leading to a deeper understanding of the interactions between academic thoughts and the politics of the Song dynasty. Although a rich body of literature on the mechanisms by which Han Tuozhou monopolized power for so long has been written, questions remain unanswered. For instance, the question of Emperor Ningzong’s thinking when he chose to place his confidence in Han Tuozhou for thirteen years and, moreover, tacitly permitted him to use the Qingyuan proscription for the purpose of driving Zhao Ruyu out from the center of court.Taking the mourning rites proper to Ningzong’s relationship with his grandfather as the starting point, this essay discusses how Ningzong became so securely confident in Han Tuozhou. According to Zhu Xi’s (1130-1200) recommendation, even under circumstances where his father (Emperor Guangzong) was yet living, Ningzong should follow the essential mourning rites of “grandson’s assumption of responsibilities for his deceased father mourning rites (disun chengzhong 嫡孙承重)”, and hence remain in mourning for three years for his grandfather (Emperor Xiaozong). This unusual proposal for adjusting the system of ritual institutions symbolized Ningzong’s decision to follow Xiaozong’s inclination towards the political line of the Neo-Confucianism scholar-official group, as well to take Guangzong’s failures while reigning as a negative lesson. Zhu Xi’s position was widely endorsed by a clique of Neo-Confucianism scholar-officials led by Zhao Ruyu, who did so because they were taking the initiative in the political struggle that was about to unfold, and hence taking preemptive action.However, this observation of the three-year mourning period would have required that for twenty-seven months prior to ascending the throne, Ningzong was unable to carry out auspicious rites such as offering sacrifices at the Grand Imperial Ancestral Temple and Jingling Temple, which would do significant damage to his authority as emperor. Consequently Han Tuozhou and his faction went in a contrary direction, firmly maintaining that Ningzong should not follow the pattern of “disun chengzhong”. Thus, during the second year of the Qingyuan era (1196), he assisted Ningzong in bringing the three-year mourning period to an early conclusion. During the following year (1197), when Ningzong’s great grandmother (the Grand Empress Dowager Wu) passed away, Han Tuozhou falsified the date of her death, ensuring that the plan for Ningzong’s first sacrifices in the southern suburbs could be carried out normally. More importantly, Ningzong escaped a second three-year mourning period required of him in his status as the dowager empress’s “mainline great grandson”. These measures won the confidence of Ningzong, thereby weakening the influences of Zhu Xi and other Neo-Confucianism scholar-officials on him. Thus, through the Qingyuan proscription, Han Tuozhou’s faction was able to defeat these opponents, and the impacts of these behaviors were decisive for the direction of subsequent political developments in the early period of Ningzong’s reign.Within the field of classical studies, “disun chengzhong” is a subject important to “ritual learning (lixue 礼学)”. Drawing upon Han and Tang dynasty classical scholarship, Zhu Xi creatively applied a theory of “disun chengzhong” to Emperor Ningzong, revealing that his system of scholarly thought was constructed on the foundation of engagement with Han and Tang dynasty classical studies. In this case, through their research on it, Song dynasty Confucian scholars both indirectly engaged in major political policymaking and set the course for future politics. This furthered and deepened Song dynasty scholar-officials’ understanding of the mechanisms by which the government operated.Zhu Xi is a Neo-Confucian, but the method of scholarly inquiry he employs rather belongs to the category of traditional Han and Tang dynasty classical scholarship. Furthermore, the objective he sought to achieve was to underpin the fundamental political orientation of Emperor Ningzong’s imperial court. By presenting an entirely new picture of the interaction between Southern Song dynasty politics and scholarship, this article incorporates the extensive research findings on the history of Chinese philosophy, classical philology, and Song dynasty political history, comprehensively employing methodologies belonging to these three fields to weave together the timelines for the evolution of ritual institutions, specific events pertaining to individual lives, and the course of political developments.
|
|
Received: 09 November 2021
|
|
|
|
1 虞云国： 《南宋行暮：宋光宗宋宁宗时代》，上海：上海人民出版社，2018年。
2 李超： 《南宋宁宗朝前期政治研究》，上海：上海古籍出版社，2019年。
3 脱脱： 《宋史》，北京：中华书局，1977年。
4 朱熹： 《晦庵先生朱文公文集》，见朱杰人、严佐之、刘永翔编： 《朱子全书》第21册，上海：上海古籍出版社，合肥：安徽教育出版社，2002年。
5 徐松辑： 《宋会要辑稿》，刘琳、刁忠民、舒大刚等校点，上海：上海古籍出版社，2015年。
6 李焘： 《续资治通鉴长编》，北京：中华书局，2004年。
7 谢深甫编： 《庆元条法事类》，见杨一凡、田涛主编： 《中国珍稀法律典籍续编》第1册，哈尔滨：黑龙江人民出版社，2002年。
8 郑玄注、孔颖达疏： 《礼记正义》，见阮元校刻： 《十三经注疏（清嘉庆刊本）》第3册，北京：中华书局，2009年。
9 郑玄注、贾公彦疏： 《仪礼注疏》，见阮元校刻： 《十三经注疏（清嘉庆刊本）》第2册，北京：中华书局，2009年。
10 朱熹： 《晦庵先生朱文公文集》，见朱杰人、严佐之、刘永翔编： 《朱子全书》第22册，上海：上海古籍出版社，合肥：安徽教育出版社，2002年。
11 叶绍翁： 《四朝闻见录》，北京：中华书局，1989年。
12 袁说友： 《东塘集》，见《影印文渊阁四库全书》第1154册，台北：台湾商务印书馆，1986年。
13 佚名编： 《续编两朝纲目备要》，汝企和点校，北京：中华书局，1995年。
14 束景南： 《朱熹年谱长编》，上海： 古籍出版社，2001年。
15 黎靖德编： 《朱子语类》，北京： 中华书局，1986年。
16 朱熹： 《晦庵先生朱文公别集》，见朱杰人、严佐之、刘永翔编： 《朱子全书》第25册，上海：上海古籍出版社，合肥：安徽教育出版社，2002年。
17 佚名： 《宋史全文》，汪圣铎点校，北京：中华书局，2016年。
18 朱熹： 《家礼》，见朱杰人、严佐之、刘永翔编： 《朱子全书》第7册，上海：上海古籍出版社，合肥：安徽教育出版社，2002年。
19 朱熹： 《晦庵先生朱文公文集》，见朱杰人、严佐之、刘永翔编： 《朱子全书》第23册，上海：上海古籍出版社，合肥：安徽教育出版社，2002年。
20 黄榦、杨复编： 《仪礼经传通解续》，见朱杰人、严佐之、刘永翔编： 《朱子全书》第3册， 上海：上海古籍出版社，合肥：安徽教育出版社，2002年。
21 黄榦、杨复编： 《仪礼经传通解续》，见朱杰人、严佐之、刘永翔编： 《朱子全书》第4册，上海：上海古籍出版社，合肥：安徽教育出版社，2002年。
22 李心传： 《建炎以来朝野杂记》，北京：中华书局，2000年。
23 黄以周： 《礼书通故》，北京：中华书局，2007年。
24 黄淮、杨士奇编： 《历代名臣奏议》，上海：上海古籍出版社，1989年。
25 楼钥： 《攻媿集》，见《四部丛刊初编》第1153册，上海：商务印书馆，1922年。
26 魏了翁： 《鹤山先生大全文集》，见《四部丛刊初编》第1257册，上海：商务印书馆，1922年。
27 彭龟年： 《止堂集》卷五，见《影印文渊阁四库全书》第1155册，台北：台湾商务印书馆，1986年。
28 李心传编： 《道命录》，朱军点校，上海：上海古籍出版社，2016年。
29 马端临： 《文献通考》，北京：中华书局，2011年。
30 陈傅良： 《陈傅良先生文集》，杭州：浙江大学出版社，1999年。 |
|
|
|
2022, Vol. 52 
