Routledge Handbook of Chinese Architecture; Social Production of Buildings and Spaces in History

Page 1

In ancient China, “Confucian orthodox tradition” (daotong) referred specifically to the passing

down of correct Confucian teaching (dao) from one generation to the next. The practice can

also be understood as endeavors to secure some autonomy of education and learning without

political interference, yet in reality this was hardly ever achieved under the authoritarian rule

of the emperor. In the practical teaching of Confucian classics, educational institutions were

established, and the most material embodiment of the institutions were the “school-temples”

(miaoxue). School-temples were official schools where Confucian classics were taught – schools

to which Confucian temples were also attached, allowing ritual tributes to be paid to Confucius

and other prominent scholars of Confucian learning. Students in school-temples were expected

not only to study the classics but also to worship the ancient sages. Learning of knowledge and

cultivating of personality were combined; rational study and spiritual worshipping were con-

joined – a culture that was rather oriental in essence.

In ancient China, authoritarian political dynasties came and went, yet Confucian orthodoxy –

as based on the thought of Confucius – remained supreme and highly respected. When

Confucius was regarded as “the teacher of all emperors,” a special combination of Confucian

orthodoxy and imperial power was fully revealed. At this point, we may inquire as to the rela-

tions between them; did orthodoxy teaching survive because it relied on imperial power, or

did the authority remain because it relied on Confucian teaching? It is an important historical

question worthy of reflection.

To respond to this question with an architectural perspective, it is important to conduct

an analysis on the spatial construction of school-temples. This chapter examines the Imperial

Academy – known as Guozijian – of Beijing.1 This case is important on two grounds. Firstly,

Guozijian was the highest-ranking educational institution and scholarly academy of imperial

China; it was the largest in scale, and most supreme in hierarchy, of all colleges or academies of

the empire; it represented all school-temples in the country. Secondly, the practice of combin-

ing a school and a temple within one institution originated in the capital city, Jiankang (today’s

Nanjing) of Eastern Jin dynasty (266–420),2 was established as a system in the Tang and Song

dynasties (618–1279), and matured in the last three dynasties – Yuan, Ming, and Qing (domi-

nated each by Mongolian, Han, and Manchurian ethnic groups respectively, 1279–1911) –

whose capital and Imperial Academy were all located in Beijing. Here in Beijing over the last

three dynasties, the school-temple evolved into a mature architectural system; yet, due to ethnic

Page 2

and cultural difference between these three authorities, the relative importance of school and

temple buildings shifted over time, creating a diachronic differentiation and a base for compari-

son across these periods.

In 1271, Yuan dynasty established its capital, Dadu, where the city of Zhongdu of Jin dynasty

(1115–1234) was located (where Beijing is located today). There was already a Confucian tem-

ple in the southern part of the city built in the Jin dynasty, revealing an intention to revive the

school-temple practice. But later on, the school building with the temple was not intended to

use the temple much for Confucius worship or Confucian learning; rather, it relied on the Tao-

ist priests of the Jin tradition. The school or the academy was simply a language and translation

institution, but it formally adopted the Han Chinese practice of building schools with temples,

so that the authority appeared more acceptable to the Chinese who were the majority in the

empire – as a political gimmick.3 After that, Confucians and Taoists entered a heated debate

on the management and property rights of the school and the temple, until the Yuan emperor

Kublai Kahn adjudicated a win for the Confucians, which considerably excited the Confucian

society.

The Imperial Academy of the Yuan was very special; it changed the practice of one academy

managing several departments into a new practice of three parallel academies – “Mongolian

Academy,” “Imperial Academy,” and “Huihui (Chinese-Muslin) Academy,” revealing an eth-

nic complexity. But the Imperial Academy itself, the center of Confucian learning, was not

built until some ten years after the Mongolian Academy was built, with the mounting pres-

sure of Confucian scholar-officials of various ethnic origins – Han (Chinese), Mongolian, and

Chinese-Muslin (Huihui).4 After decades of development, the city of Dadu witnessed a filling

up and densification of its middle and southern parts – as occupied increasingly by commoners’

houses; as the Imperial Academy required a lot of space and might later expand, it was placed

in the northern part and was closer to the east, on a spacious location with a plot size of 90

mu (1 mu = 0.0667 hectares), subdivided into 50 mu for the temple and 40 mu for the school.5

Although it was planned for the school to be built first, in reality the temple structures were

completed first, and the funding for school buildings was much delayed; the school was finally

completed five years after the temple, revealing a political culture of privileging worship over

learning.

Both temple and school compounds faced the street. The Confucian Temple here adopted

the layout of the Temple of Confucius in Qufu – hometown of Confucius, more specifically

the section from Dachengmen Gate to Dachengdian Hall; the main hall in Beijing was similar

in scale to that in Qufu. The school, to the west of the Temple, had spacious courtyards; teach-

ers and teacher-officials’ residences and their lecture halls were located in the middle, whereas

to the east and west of the compound were the six departments for teaching and studying. The

compound had many different kinds of trees and the green landscape was well organized with

rich layers; the environment was elegant and serene, and facilities for staff and students – liv-

ing, dining, and bathing – were fully provided.6 Later on, within the compound, Chongwenge

Building (a library) was added to house classics and rare books, in a scale and style similar to the

Kuiwenge Building (library) built in the Ming dynasty in Qufu’s Temple of Confucius (23.35 m

high, 17.62 m north to south, and 30.10 m east to west). Grand and beautiful, the new library

added glory to the Confucian School of Beijing.7

Regarding the ritual staff in the Confucian Temple, the joining of the towering figure

of Confucian scholar Xu Heng (1209–1281) revealed the authority’s strong promotion of

Page 3

neo-Confucianism.8 Neo-Confucianism, or the Cheng-Zhu school of Confucian thought,

grew into the dominant state ideology in the middle of the Yuan dynasty (1279–1368); the sages

and masters before Zhu Xi, Cheng Yi and Cheng Hao (1130–1200, 1033–1107, 1032–1085),

and even the followers of Zhu and Cheng brothers, were increasingly revered; and the trend

continued uninterrupted to the end of the Yuan.9

Yuan rulers understood too well the underlying relationship between Confucian doctrines

and the politics of imperial rule, so they respected Confucian learning greatly; they gave the

title of Wenxuanwang – King of Culture, the highest ever bestowed – to Confucius. They also

prescribed the use of the highest class of ritual format for worshipping Confucius – at the same

level as for the emperor. The layout of Imperial Academy in Dadu followed the pattern of

“temple to the east and school to the west” – the east being a superior position in the tradition

– and although the two were next to each other, the temple compound was bigger and more

independent. Indeed, the scale and spaciousness of the temple here surpassed all Confucius

temples of capital cities of the past. The supreme numbers of 9 and 5 were used for the planning

and building of the temple, matching the dimensions reserved for buildings for the supreme

emperor. All of these revealed Yuan rulers’ respect for Confucius and Confucian learning, rather

than a real understanding and study of Confucian thought, as well expressed in the phrase “all

towns and cities of the empire regardless of size must have a school-temple in which the temple

is the most important.”10 The respect for Confucian scholars was limited to those already estab-

lished; the building of schools and the promotion of teaching and learning were not so much

emphasized. This was reflected in the privileging of temple over school and was probably to do

with the relatively short history of Yuan, which lasted fewer than one hundred years.11

In contrast to the Yuan rulers who privileged temple over school, the Ming emperors reversed

their priority; this was most clearly manifested in the “Great Debate on the Rituals” under

Jiajing Emperor (r. 1521–1567), which revealed a dominance of imperial authority over – and

a manipulation of – Confucian orthodoxy; this was in total contrast to the Yuan time, when

the rulers revered Confucian doctrines. The transformation left its marks in school and temple

structures of the Imperial Academy at an architectural level.

In the first era of Ming dynasty, the capital was located in Nanjing. Due to a strong need

for talents to build the country, large numbers of students were recruited, and a new Imperial

Academy was built at the foot of Jimingshan Hill; the government considered school education

critical to the survival and development of the state. The large scale of the academy and the

speed of construction were beyond imagination; within two years, the project was completed.

The school was completed before the temple; the layout remained in the form of “temple to

the east and school to the west.”

In location and height, the temple was formally superior to the school, in real spatial organi-

zation; however, the design centered on the school.12 The axis of the whole complex started

at the southern end in the Chengxianjie block; some three hundred trees properly lined up on

the two sides of the axial street looking north. When you reached the northern end, it was the

Guozijian block, beyond which stood the Confucian school. Although both temple and school

compounds extended northwards into deeper spaces, and although the temple was to the east

in a superior position, the eastern position was in fact off-center (from the viewpoint of the

northbound approach on the axis). However, because of the axial approach on the Chengxian-

jie Street and the two blocks building up along the approach, the school attained a central and

critical position as the core to the whole complex. The deep and reserved look of the temple

Page 4

front, and the fences outside the gate, certainly imparted a distant and dignified image. The

temple might indeed have been the spiritual center of the academy, but it lacked the command-

ing and critical position the school had in the overall spatial layout and spatial use of the system.

In the Imperial Academy of Nanjing, the status of the school was surely rising to rival that of

the temple (Figure 9.1).

The east–west spatial spine, defined by the east–west street outside the school-temple and

the east–west blocks (including Chengxianjie Fang), along with the north–south space of the

Chengxianjie Street, formed a T-shaped intersection and defined an open space in the Imperial

Academy; the T-shaped space, the Jiandong river, and the bridges together formed a group of

carefully divided communal spaces for ritual, learning, and everyday life. Apart from funneling

traffic and dividing spaces, the T-shaped intersection also displayed a revered dignity and the

authority of the academy.13 The Imperial Academy was basically a sealed-off complex. Students

could not come in and out freely; within, life was much self-sustained. The T-shaped space was

a basic ground, linking various buildings together, and was the only open space with a street-

plaza quality, serving a certain urban function. When the emperor came here to inspect in early

Ming, staff and students all gathered at the east end of the Chengxianjie Street to welcome and

to see off the sage ruler, revealing a ritual and symbolic importance of the space.

Under Yongle Emperor (r. 1402–1424), the capital was relocated to Beijing, and the Impe-

rial Academy there used the old site left by the Yuan dynasty. By now, Chongwenge Library of

the Yuan academy was much destroyed; upon the site, a new Yiluntang Hall was built, and to

the west of the school compound an archery exercise ground was created. The Yuan authority –

ruled by Mongolians – was strict on the Han Chinese population and did not allow the exercise

of archery; therefore, an exercise ground as such was not built in the academy of the Yuan and

was part of the eradication of the ritual and practice in the Yuan time. Now, in the Ming, this

ancient ritual was recovered; the imperial decree requested all schools in the empire to imitate

Figure 9.1 Spatial organization of the Imperial Academy in Nanjing of the Ming dynasty.

Source: © Shen Yang.

Page 5

the practice of Northern Song dynasty (960–1127) and to build archery grounds, asking all

students to practice the art; a pavilion for Observing the Virtue – Guandeting, or other similar

names – was requested to be built at the center of these grounds.

In the Ming, imperial authority was much centralized and autocratic, reaching a height of

power previously unmatched; it did not allow other authorities to counter imperial power, and

the Confucian temple became a major problem. In early Ming, Emperor Zhu Yuanzhang (r.

1368–1398) decreed that the common use of Confucian temples should be terminated, which

aroused intense reactions among Confucian scholars and scholar-officials. Under Emperor Jia-

jing (r. 1402–1424), changes were made to the practice of using Confucian temples – the titles

for Confucius were demoted, the name of the main hall was changed from Dachengdian (hall

of great achievement) to Kongzimiao (Temple for Confucius), and the various ritual practices

were reduced. One dramatic measure then was the replacing of the statues of Confucius and his

followers with wooden tablets. This iconoclastic destruction, however, prompted great anger

only among the scholar-officials or gentry of the imperial court; commoners did not respond to

it too much – unlike the iconoclastic movement in Europe that aroused intense conflicts among

Christians. In China, with the statues replaced by the wooden tables, with the sages’ names

written on them, the image of Confucian teaching became increasingly distant to the popula-

tion, especially to many illiterate commoners.14 Further, by removing the statues, it reduced the

space needed, which led to the shortening of the side galleries of the temples – places where

statues of the lesser deities (followers of Confucius) were previously placed.

The addition of two side galleries to a temple hall was a common practice since the Song

dynasty (960–1279), yet the scale (number of bays and the overall length) was not fixed. From

Song to Qing (1644–1911), the dimensions were determined by the number of statues of these

lesser deities to be included in the galleries. Since the Tang dynasty (618–907), the ritual prac-

tice for worshipping Confucius grew into a massive cultural system, allowing later generations

to contribute to its growth, with a purpose of paying tribute to the sage Confucius and encour-

aging students to study and strive forth. Worshipping at a Temple of Confucius included a seg-

ment of paying tribute to the lesser deities, and these deities were placed and worshipped with

a strict hierarchy. Since these deities could not be placed together in a crowded fashion in the

main hall, it was sensible to place them in a linear order from the center down, in the galleries

that stretched from the main hall in the middle down on the two sides; this also allowed rooms

for further extensions. The side galleries were the ideal typology for this practice. If we liken the

main hall Dachengdian to the emperor, then the two side galleries were like civilian and mili-

tary ministers guarding on the flanks. With the main hall on the high platform, the horizontal

extension of the two side galleries created a good spatial composition of order and hierarchy;

architecture and space here became a concrete manifestation of social and religious structures.

Taking into account the doctrines of Confucian teaching and the need of imperial authority,

it was only natural that Confucianism was regarded as a national-societal foundation and the

core of moral teaching; and the hierarchical order it promoted was also naturally materialized

into the architecture space of the complex.15 The side galleries were there to create a “closed

space”; because of the galleries, the courtyard gained a certain identity and autonomy against the

outside, and the main hall became the focus of the enclosed realm. Rudolf Arnheim referred to

this realm as a constructed space or extrinsic space, and its purpose was “to control relationships

between objects and to provide a scale and a standard for the visual experience.”16 In the Ming

and Qing dynasties, courtyards with side galleries withered; only Confucian temples maintained

the practice of this thousand-year long tradition, without imitating the ancient typology rigidly –

they followed the actual needs of the time for functional or spiritual purposes. The reduction

of the length of side galleries limited the space in front of the main hall Dachengdian, making it

Page 6

inferior to the space in front of the main lecture hall of the school; this effectively reduced and

lowered the standing of the Confucian temple, the symbol of Confucius orthodoxy.

Further, in the Ming dynasty, a Qishengsi was built at the end of the axis of the complex;

it was dedicated to Confucius’ father, which highlighted Confucius as a son and a minister of

someone else, reducing the standing of the sage as teacher of all time. At the same time, to the

north of the lecture hall, a group of pavilions ( Jingyiting or Pavilion for Respecting One) was

added, and all Confucian schools nationwide – following a decree – must follow this; these

pavilions contained the essays written by Emperor Jiajing, “Advice on Respecting One” ( Jin-

gyizhen) and “Notes on Five Advices” (Wuzhenzhu). These were Jiajing’s own reflective notes

based on reading classics; it is interesting to observe that with these interpretative writings, an

imperial power now became a symbol of Confucian orthodoxy. These pieces implied that the

emperor had understood the secret of thinking from the ancient Emperor Yao and Emperor

Shun, so that an emperor can be a teacher, yet a teacher cannot become an emperor. The

confrontation of the Jingyiting pavilions with the main Confucian temple delivered a recon-

struction of the symbolic system of orthodox tradition and dislocated – if not negated entirely –

the importance of Confucianism as the main official doctrine.17

In Qing dynasty, the Imperial Academy of Beijing, as a major site to promote Confucian and

ritualist doctrines of the empire and to celebrate greatness of imperial authority, enjoyed care

and privileges from the government. In terms of its overall layout, apart from expanding the

institution by transforming southern nearby buildings into Southern Academy, the major devel-

opment was the building of Biyong – a circular-shaped place for rituals and lecturing – inside

the school compound by Qianlong Emperor (r. 1735–1796). Qianlong’s own selfish plan was to

deliver lectures on the fiftieth anniversary of his reign, so that he could become the first imperial

ruler to lecture at Biyong, which resulted in the ritual practice described as linyong shixue, “visit-

ing Biyong to inspect school and learning.”18 The initially too-open and spacious compound

was now enriched; with the newly added Drum Pavilion and Bell Pavilion to the east and west

respectively, the overall space from the front gate to the Yiluntang (main library complex) was

now more rhythmic, with layers of spaces building up one after another.19

The addition of Biyong surely revealed Qianlong’s personal interest and political message.

In terms of architecture, it added something in not just the physical layout, but also the use of

spaces in the ritual practice of paying tribute to Confucius.

Within the Imperial Academy, this manifested in the different paths the emperor adopted

from paying tribute to Confucius in the temple to inspecting learning in the school. Before

Biyong was built, Emperors Shunzhi, Kangxi, and Yongzheng had all inspected Yiluntang

Library and delivered lectures; Kangxi had also offered his calligraphic writing of “yi lun tang”

for a front plaque of the library. In those days, when the emperor came to inspect the Impe-

rial Academy, he went to Dachengdian – the main hall of the Confucian temple – first, then

came out, entered into an eastern side chamber in the southern front court to change his attire,

then came out southwards and ascended to a sedan chair to be carried; the trajectory moved

first west, then northward, into the gate of the school, and then northward to the Yiluntang

Library; there the emperor delivered his rites of lecturing. But, after Biyong was built, several

gates to the west and northwest of Dachendian (the main hall of the temple) were opened; upon

completing the rituals for the sage Confucius, the emperor then moved through the western

and northwestern gates into Yiluntang Library and rested in its eastern Warm Chamber to

change his attire and have a meal before coming out to lecture (Figure 9.2). When the emperor

Page 7

lectured in Biyong, ministers, officials, teachers, and students – four thousand in total in ten

groups – all lined up outside the bridges to the east, west, and south. The formation of the

crowd extended southward beyond the arches; the formation was very orderly, and the spectacle

was very impressive.20

Outside the Imperial Academy, the ritual trajectory the emperor adopted – as he moved

out of this palace city into the academy – was also very telling. As early as the ninth year of

Jiajing era (1530) of Ming dynasty, the palace city itself already had collective shrines for 11

gods: Fuxi, Shennong, Huangdi, Rao, Shun, Yu, Tang, Wen, Wu, Zhougong, and Confucius –

with Fuxi and Confucius the first and the last in the Confucian orthodox tradition.21 Into the

Qing, Shunzhi Emperor worshipped Confucius in Hongdedian Hall, whereas Kangxi Emperor

built a Chuanxindian Hall on the eastern side of Wenhuadian compound, to worship the first

nine gods at the center and the last two, Zhougong and Confucius, on the two sides. Yong-

zheng Emperor followed this practice; Qianlong Emperor visited and worshipped here upon

his ascendance to the throne; in the sixtieth year of his reign, he visited and paid tribute to the

gods here as well (Figure 9.3). These worshipping rituals within the palace city were part of

the emperor’s life, whereas his trip out to inspect the Imperial Academy was a more elaborate

political and cultural exercise, and the journey and the process certainly aimed for manifesting

and promoting his image as a sage ruler.22 In Ming dynasty, to reach the Imperial Academy

to the northeast, the emperor would come southwards first, to go beyond the Golden River

Bridges, then turn east and north; on his way back, he still needed to pass the bridges to return

northwards. In early Qing, this practice was maintained; but in the Qianlong reign, the emperor

now came out of the palace city via the eastern gate – Donghuamen; this was probably because

Figure 9.2 Imperial Academy in Beijing of the Qing after the adding of Biyong and the new route

adopted for the Emperor’s inspection.

Source: © Shen Yang.

Page 8

Emperor Qianlong cared a lot about Chuanxindian in the Wenhuadian Compound, which

was located just inside the eastern gate, Donghuamen. This change to use Donghuamen was

specified in the imperial decree Linyongyi Zhu (notes on the ritual of inspecting the academy)

issued on the fiftieth year of his reign (1785), two years after Biyong was built in the imperial

school (Figure 9.4).

Figure 9.3 Sites for worshipping Confucius with the Palace City in the Qing dynasty.

Source: © Shen Yang.

Page 9

By now, the Imperial Academy of Beijing as we know it today was fully established

(Figure 9.5). In the Imperial Academy, temple and school compounds were parallel and next

to each other, each with their own axis and axial articulation, and had their own transitional

spaces, to facilitate circulation and logistical service. In the northern area, despite some messy

Figure 9.4 Routes Emperor Qianlong took for the Imperial Academy and other sites.

Source: © Shen Yang.

Page 10

arrangement, the placing of Yushulou Library and Tudici Temple to the east and west retained

the basic symmetrical layout of the Confucian temple. In the south, outside the gates of the

Imperial Academy ran an east–west street Chengxianjie; it was not as wide as the one in Nan-

jing but maintained a clear thoroughness for east–west movement. Passing through two street

arches, two fence lines, two academy arches, and two stone tablets (Xiamabei), the east–west

street was carefully marked and articulated, forming an urban front and urban extension of the

Imperial Academy. Whenever the emperor was coming here to inspect the academy, all officials,

scholars, and students kneeled down on the street to welcome the sage ruler; this street therefore

displayed multiple characteristics – ceremonial, urban-social, and traffic-utilitarian. For temple

and school, each had a grand entry with the gate retreating back (northward) forming a fan-

shaped open space in front; each also had a Mirror (or Shadow) Wall, zhaobi, on the opposite or

southern side of the street facing the gate (the one facing the temple had a fan-shape opening

northwards); these two carefully defined front spaces formed two climaxes on the east–west

street. Yet, the deep spaces and the tall enclosing walls of the academy imparted an aloof look;

the academy was not open for the public to visit, let alone for them to pay tribute.23 It is not

surprising that many commoners came and went through here without knowing nor noticing

anything beyond the closed gates.24

Further, the class nature of the academy, as revealed in its operation, was also very differ-

ent from, if not opposite to, a universal care of all people as striven for in the initial Confucian

Figure 9.5 Spatial organization of the Imperial Academy in Beijing of the Qing dynasty.

Source: © Shen Yang.

Page 11

thought. When Kangxi Emperor paid a visit and tribute to the Confucian Temple in Qufu,

he offered his calligraphic script, which said “Teaching and Moral Exemplification for Ten

Thousand Generations” (wanshi shi biao). The use of these words implied that the believers and

practitioners of official Confucianism or Confucian orthodoxy were in reality imperial rulers

(known as di wang shi or imperial teacher) and scholar-officials. In effect, for all ritual prac-

tices in the academy, from annual celebrations to monthly rites, the use of the institution was

monopolized by these two groups of people.25 In other words, Confucius and the other deities

were the guardians of gentries and scholar-officials. In the Ming and Qing, if scholar-officials

were mistreated by imperial authority, they would go to a Confucian temple to complain, a

practice known as “crying at temple” (kumiao), which verifies our observation here.26

In reality, school-temple (miaoxue) initially had no temple; to build a Confucian temple in or

with a school was entirely based on the condition of Confucianism being elevated to the posi-

tion of an intellectual orthodoxy, and on the necessity of paying ritual tribute to Confucius on

the school ground. Once educational schools and Confucian temples became interconnected

and were generally accepted all over the country, the symbolic significance of the setup then

surpassed its function as merely a school for teaching and learning.

The phrasing of miaoxue, temple-school (or school-temple), covers up the initial condition

that there are schools without temples. Such a phrase has also elevated the importance of tem-

ples. Despite efforts such as Jiajing of Ming adding weight and putting buildings to the schools

for a rebalance, there was never really a full equalization of the two. Without the campaign of

“promoting Confucianism alone above one hundred schools of thought” by Han Dynasty’s

Emperor Wudi (r. 141–87 BC), and without the singular imperial promotion and sanctioning

of Confucianism as the correct orthodoxy of all learning in the follow dynasties, the forma-

tion of the school-temple institution is unthinkable. The subsequent studies and interpretations

of Confucian orthodoxy, especially by great scholars such as Han Yu (768–824) and Zhu Xi

(1130–1200), determined the ways of thinking, respecting, and worshipping Confucianism in

the times that followed.

As a tool to establish a correct culture and its symbolic system, the school-temple institution

delivered an idealized cultural system in the real world upon the figure of Confucius as suwang

(pure and primary king of all time) for the kings and emperors to rule over society. The system

of Confucian thought was then institutionalized for state purposes; its moral orthodoxy was

externalized into a state ideology. In our current study of the institution over the three dynasties

Yuan, Ming, and Qing in Beijing, the relative importance of school and temple changed over

time – temple over school, school over temple, and both as important – but what remained

consistent was imperial authority’s use of learning and culture, and a mixture of idealism and

pragmatic considerations – a combination of idealism and instrumentalism.27 Whether school

or temple was emphasized was entirely dependent on the emperor’s pragmatic considerations

at that particular time.

We can therefore suggest that the school-temple institution was a constructed system that

was both open and closed; it was open because of its flexibility as based on a fundamental Con-

fucian care for humans, and it was closed because it manifested an absolute domination of state

power and authority. This contradiction ensured that the institution was not a simple addition

of a temple to a school, but rather a Confucian and symbolic orthodox system employed if not

manipulated in every aspect by the imperial authority.

Page 12

1 The system of Guozisi (imperial temple) was first established in the Northern Qi dynasty (550–577);

later the Sui dynasty (581–619) followed the practice and changed the name to Guozijian (Imperial

Academy).

2 See Xu Song (Tang Dynasty), Jiankang Shilu (A Memoir of Jiankang) (Beijing: Sikuguan 1781). See

also Gao Mingshi, Dongya Jiaoyu Quan Xingcheng Lun (A History of the Formation of the Educational

Sphere in East Asia) (Shanghai: Shanghai Guji Chubanshe, 2003), 52.

3 Wang Jianjun, Yuandai Guozijian Yanjiun (A Study of the Imperial Academy of the Yuan Dynasty)

(Macao: Aoya Zhoukan Chuban Youxian Gongsi, 2003), 26.

4 Wang, Yuandai, 94–112.

5 Cheng Jufu (Yuan Dynasty), “Dayuan guoxue xiansheng miaobei (Temple Tablets for the Sages in

the Academy of the Yuan Dynasty),” in Xue Lou Ji (Collection from the Pavilion in the Snow), vol. 6,

Cheng Jufu (Beijing: Sikuguan, 1780), 1–3 (of vol. 6).

6 See Wang, Yuandai, 121; see also: Jiang Dongcheng, “Yuan Dadu kongmiao, guozixue de jianzhu

moshi yu jizhi guimo tanxi (A Preliminary Inquiry into the Scale of Construction and the Scale Foun-

dation for the Confucian Temple and Imperial Academy in the Yuan Capital Dadu),” Gugong Bowuyuan

Yuankan: Palace Museum Journal, no. 2 (2007): 18.

7 See Wu Cheng (Yuan Dynasty), “Congwenge bei (Tablets at Congwen Pavilion),” in Wu Wenzheng ji

(Collection of Wu Wenzheng’s Writings), vol. 50 (Beijing: Sikuguan, 1789), 1–7 (of vol. 50).

8 Song Lian et al. (Ming Dynasty), eds., Yuan Shi (History of the Yuan Dynasty) (Beijing: Zhonghua

Shuju, 2005), 557.

9 Jiang, “Yuan Dadu,” 20.

10 Zhao Chengxi, “Yonghe xian chong xiu miaoxue Ji (Recording the Reconstruction of the School-

Temple in the County of Yonghe),” in Quan Yuan Wen (Complete Works of the Yuan Dynasty), ed. Li

Xiusheng (Nanjing: Jiangsu Guji Chubanshe, 1999), 234–235.

11 Qu Yingjie, Kongmiao Shihua (A History of the Confucian Temple) (Beijing: Zhongguo Dabaike

Quanshu Chubanshe, 1998), 95.

12 See Xu Hong, “Ming Nanjing guozijian de xiaoyuan guihua (Campus Planning for the Imperial

Academy of Nanjing in the Ming Dynasty),” in Diqijie Mingshi Guoji Xueshu Taolunhui Lunwenji (Pro-

ceedings of the Seventh International Symposium on Ming History), ed. Zhao Yi and Lin Fengping

(Changchun: Dongbei Shifan Daxue Chubanshe, 1999), 569.

13 For example, in 1394 (the 27th year of the Hongwu Era), a student named Zhao Lin was decapitated

and his head placed on top of a post in this open space, because he was found, as claimed, guilty of libel

of teachers.

14 See Huang Jinxing, Shengxian yu Shengtu (Sages and Saints) (Beijing: Beijing Daxue Chubanshe, 2005),

144–187, 205–233.

15 On Confucian thought and its impact on the design of Confucian temples, please see: Pan Guxi,

“Cong Qufu kan rujia sixiang dui jianzhu de yingxian (Confucian Thought and Its Influence on the

Architecture in the City of Qufu),” Kongzi Yanjiu (Studies on Confucius), no. 2 (1986): 67–70. See

also Li Bingnan, “Rujia xueshuo dui Zhongguo gudai jianzhu de yingxiang (The Influence of Con-

fucianism on Ancient Chinese Architecture),” Yunnan Shehui Kexue (Social Sciences in Yunnan), no. 3

(1999): 88–94.

16 Quoted from: Wu Hong, Liyi Zhong de Meishu: Wu Hong Zhongguo Gudai Meishu Shi Wenbian (Fine

Arts in Ritual Practice: Wu Hong’s Essays in the Fine Arts of Classical China) (Beijing: Sanlian Shu-

dian, 2005), 553.

17 Jiang, “Yuan Dadu,” 23–27.

18 Wen Qing and Li Zhongfang (Qing Dynasty), eds., Qinding Guozijian Zhi, Juan 24, Biyongzhi Liu:

Linyong (Verified History of the Imperial Academy, vol. 24: History of Biyong Two: Imperial Inspec-

tion of the School at Biyong), punctuated and checked by Guo Yanan (Beijing: Beijing Guji Chu-

banshe, 2000), 362.

19 The Imperial Academy used to have a Bell Room and Drum Room in front of Yiluntang Hall, with

the first located to the west and the second east. At 7:00 am, the Bell rings and class starts; there is a rest

at noon, and the afternoon class ends at 5:00 pm with the beating of the Drum. When the emperor

comes to inspect, Bell ringing and Drum beating are used together. After some debates on ritual for-

mat, the Bell and Drum were moved further south, but the first was still to the west and the second

east, for signaling morning and evening respectively. There were texts prescribing the Bell and Drum

Page 13

to be placed to the east and west, but in reality, it was opposite. This is probably because the ringing of

the Bell on the west in the morning receives sun light from the east as viewed from a central position

very comfortably; and the same is true the other way around in the afternoon – for the beating of the

Drum to the east at dust receiving the glow of sunset.

20 Wen Qing and Li Zhongfang (Qing Dynasty), eds., Qinding Guozijian Zhi, Juan 19, Biyong Zhi (Veri-

fied History of the Imperial Academy, vol. 19: History of Biyong) (Beijing: Beijing Guji Chubanshe,

2000), 313.

21 Zhang Tingyu et al. (Qing Dynasty), eds., Ming Shi, Juan 50, Zhi Di 26 – Li 4 – Shengshi (History of

the Ming Dynasty, vol. 50, History 26 – Rituals 4 – Paying Tribute to Sage Teachers) (Beijing: Zhon-

ghua Shuju, 1974), 1291.

22 Jianfei Zhu, “Tianchao shachang: Qing gugong ji Beijing de zhengzhi kongjian goucheng gangyao (A

Celestial Battlefield: The Forbidden City and Beijing in the Late Imperial China),” trans. Xin Xifang.

Jianzhushi: The Architect, no. 74 (1997): 107–108, 111, and its endnote 21.

23 Anonymous (Yuan Dynasty), Miaoxue Dianli (Rituals at School-Temples) (Beijing: Sikuguan, 1781), 4

(of vol. 1) and 19 (of vol. 2).

24 See Zhao Yingkui (Qing Dynasty), Wenmiao Beikao (Recording and Examining the Confucian Tem-

ple) (Beijing: Dejutang, 1847), 1.

25 Zhang, Ming Shi, 1297.

26 See Chen Guodong, “Kumiao yu fen rufu: Mingmo Qingchu shengyuanceng de shehuixing dongzuo

(Crying at the Confucian Temple and Burning the Confucian Dress: Social Actions of the Scholar

Class in the Late Ming and Early Qing Period),” Xin Shixue (New History), no. 31 (1992): 69–94;

Zhou Zhibin, “Lun Qingchu Suzhou de ‘kumiao an’ (On the Case of “Crying at a Temple” in

Suzhou in the Early Qing Dynasty),” Xuehai (Sea of Studies), no. 6 (2001): 124–127; Zhang Zhilu,

“Laizhoufu zhi kumiao (Crying at the Confucian Temple in the Laizhou Prefecture),” Chunqiu (Spring

and Autumn), no. 3 (1996): 32–33.

27 See Jianfei Zhu, “Bianxin, Fuke, Hanfei, Ming-Qing Beijing: Quanli kongjian de kua wenhua taolun

(Bentham, Foucault, Hanfei and Ming-Qing Beijing: A Cross-Cultural Discussion on Power and

Space in Beijing of the Ming and Qing Period),” Shidai Jianzhu: Time + Architecture, no. 2 (2003): 106.

Anonymous (Yuan Dynasty). Miaoxue Dianli (Rituals at School-Temples). Beijing: Sikuguan, 1781.

Chen Guodong. “Kumiao yu fen rufu: Mingmo Qingchu shengyuanceng de shehuixing dongzuo (Crying

at the Confucian Temple and Burning the Confucian Dress: Social Actions of the Scholar Class in the

Late Ming and Early Qing Period).” Xin Shixue (New History), no. 31 (1992): 69–94.

Cheng Jufu (Yuan dynasty). Xue Lou Ji (Collection from the Pavilion in the Snow). Beijing: Sikuguan,

1780.

Editorial Committee, ed. Wenyuange Siku Quanshu (The Wenyuange Collection of Complete Four Librar-

ies), electronic ed. Shanghai: Shanghai Renmin Chubanshe, 1999.

———, ed. Zhongri Wenhua Yanjiu Wenku (A Library of Studies of Chinese and Japanese Cultures). Shang-

hai: Shanghai Guji Chubanshe, 2003.

Gao Mingshi. Dongya Jiaoyu Quan Xingcheng Lun (A History of the Formation of the Educational Sphere

in East Asia). Shanghai: Shanghai Guji Chubanshe, 2003.

Huang Jinxing. Shengxian yu Shengtu (Sages and Saints). Beijing: Beijing Daxue Chubanshe, 2005.

Jiang Dongcheng. “Yuan Dadu kongmiao, guozixue de jianzhu moshi yu jizhi guimo tanxi (A Prelimi-

nary Inquiry into the Scale of Construction and the Scale Foundation for the Confucian Temple and

Imperial Academy in the Yuan Capital Dadu).” Gugong Bowuyuan Yuankan: Palace Museum Journal, no.

2 (2007): 10–27.

Li Bingnan. “Rujia xueshuo dui Zhongguo gudai jianzhu de yingxiang (The Influence of Confucianism

on Ancient Chinese Architecture).” Yunnan Shehui Kexue (Social Sciences in Yunnan), no. 3 (1999):

88–94.

Li Xiusheng, ed. Quan Yuan Wen (Complete Works of the Yuan Dynasty). Nanjing: Jiangsu Guji Chu-

banshe, 1999.

Pan Guxi. “Cong Qufu kan rujia sixiang dui jianzhu de yingxian (Confucian Thought and Its Influence

on the Architecture in the City of Qufu).” Kongzi Yanjiu (Studies on Confucius), no. 2 (1986): 67–70.

Qu Yingjie. Kongmiao Shihua (A History of the Confucian Temple). Beijing: Zhongguo Dabaike Quanshu

Chubanshe, 1998.

Page 14

Song Lian et al. (Ming Dynasty), ed. Yuan Shi (History of the Yuan Dynasty). Beijing: Zhonghua Shuju,

2005.

Wang Jianjun. Yuandai Guozijian Yanjiun (A Study of the Imperial Academy of the Yuan Dynasty). Macao:

Aoya Zhoukan Chuban Youxian Gongsi, 2003.

Wen Qing and Li Zhongfang (Qing dynasty), eds. Qinding Guozijian Zhi (Verified History of the Imperial

Academy), punctuated and checked by Guo Yanan. Beijing: Beijing Guji Chubanshe, 2000.

Wu Cheng (Yuan dynasty). Wu Wenzheng ji (Collection of Wu Wenzheng’s Writings). Beijing: Sikuguan,

1789.

Wu Hong. Liyi Zhong de Meishu: Wu Hong Zhongguo Gudai Meishu Shi Wenbian (Fine Arts in Ritual Prac-

tice: Wu Hong’s Essays in the Fine Arts of Classical China). Beijing: Sanlian Shudian, 2005.

Xu Hong. “Ming Nanjing guozijian de xiaoyuan guihua (Campus Planning for the Imperial Academy of

Nanjing in the Ming Dynasty).” In Diqijie Mingshi Guoji Xueshu Taolunhui Lunwenji (Proceedings of the

Seventh International Symposium on Ming History), edited by Zhao Yi and Lin Fengping, 561–576.

Changchun: Dongbei Shifan Daxue Chubanshe, 1999.

Xu Song (Tang Dynasty). Jiankang Shilu (A Memoir of Jiankang). Beijing: Sikuguan, 1781.

Zhang Tingyu et al. (Qing dynasty), eds. Ming Shi (History of the Ming Dynasty). Beijing: Zhonghua

Shuju, 1974.

Zhang Zhilu. “Laizhoufu zhi kumiao (Crying at the Confucian Temple in the Laizhou Prefecture).” Chun-

qiu (Spring and Autumn), no. 3 (1996): 32–33.

Zhao Chengxi. “Yonghe xian chong xiu miaoxue Ji (Recording the Reconstruction of the School-

Temple in the County of Yonghe).” In Quan Yuan Wen (Complete Works of the Yuan Dynasty), edited

by Li Xiusheng, 234–235. Nanjing: Jiangsu Guji Chubanshe, 1999.

Zhao Yi and Lin Fengping, eds. Diqijie Mingshi Guoji Xueshu Taolunhui Lunwenji (Proceedings of the Sev-

enth International Symposium on Ming History). Changchun: Dongbei Shifan Daxue Chubanshe,

1999.

Zhao Yingkui (Qing Dynasty). Wenmiao Beikao (Recording and Examining the Confucian Temple). Bei-

jing: Dejutang, 1847.

Zhou Zhibin. “Lun Qingchu Suzhou de ‘kumiao an’ (On the Case of “Crying at a Temple” in Suzhou in

the Early Qing Dynasty).” Xuehai (Sea of Studies), no. 6 (2001): 124–127.

Zhu, Jianfei. “Tianchao shachang: Qing gugong ji Beijing de zhengzhi kongjian goucheng gangyao

(A Celestial Battlefield: The Forbidden City and Beijing in the Late Imperial China).” Translated by

Xin Xifang. Jianzhushi: The Architect, no. 74 (1997): 101–112.

———. “Bianxin, Fuke, Hanfei, Ming-Qing Beijing: Quanli kongjian de kua wenhua taolun (Bentham,

Foucault, Hanfei and Ming-Qing Beijing: A Cross-Cultural Discussion on Power and Space in Beijing

of the Ming and Qing Period).” Shidai Jianzhu: Time + Architecture, no. 2 (2003): 104–109.

Biyong

Cheng Hao

Cheng Yi

Cheng-Zhu (school)

Chengxianjie (street)

Chengxianjie Fang

Chongwenge

Chuanxindian

Dachengdian

Dachengmen

Dadu (city)

dao

daotong

di wang shi

Donghuamen

Page 15

Eastern Jin (dynasty)

Fuxi

Guandeting

Guozijian

Han Yu

Hongdedian

Huangdi

Huihui (ethnicity)

Jiajing (emperor)

Jiandong (river)

Jiankang (city)

Jimingshan (hill)

Jin (dynasty)

Jingyiting

Jingyizhen

Kangxi (emperor)

Kongzimiao

Kuiwenge

kumiao

linyong shixue

Linyongyi Zhu

miaoxue

Ming (dynasty)

Nanjing

Qianlong (emperor)

Qing (dynasty)

Qishengsi

Qufu (city)

Rao

Shennong

Shun

Shunzhi (emperor)

Song (dynasty)

suwang

Tang

Tang (dynasty)

Tudici

wanshi shi biao

Wen

Wenhuadian

Wenxuanwang

Wudi

Wuzhenzhu

Xiamabei

Xu Heng

Page 16

Yao

yi lun tang

Yiluntang

Yongle (emperor)

Yongzheng (emperor)

Yuan (dynasty)

Yushulou

zhaobi

Zhongdu (city)

Zhougong

Zhu Xi

Zhu Yuanzhang