The Political Symbolism of Chinese Timber Structure： a Historical Study of Official Construction in Yingzao-Fashi

Home , Dougong, Liang Sicheng, Lushi (poetry), Pagoda of Fogong Temple, South Manchuria Railway, Yang Hongxun

The Political Symbolism of Chinese Timber Structure： a historical study of official construction in Yingzao-fashi

Pengfei Ma

A thesis in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

School of Built Environment

2020

Surname/Family Name : Ma Given Name/s : Pengfei Abbreviation for degree as give in the University calendar : PhD Faculty : Faculty of Built Environment School : School of Built Environment Thesis Title : The Political Symbolism of Chinese Timber Structure： a historical study of official construction in Yingzao-fashi

Abstract 350 words maximum: (PLEASE TYPE)

This research presents a historical study of timber construction in the official building code Yingzao-fashi from the lens of politics. The longevity of Chinese civilisation is associated with the ephemeral but renewable timber structure of Chinese buildings. Such an enduring and stable tie, to a large extent, should be attributed to the adaptability of timber structures to the premodern Chinese political system. The inquiry and analysis of the research are structured into three key aspects — the impetus of Yingzao-fashi, official construction systems, the political symbolism of and literature associated with timber structure. The areas of inquiry are all centred on the research question: how did Chinese timber structure of different types serve premodern Chinese politics?

First, Yingzhao-fashi has been studied by scholars mainly from a technical point of view, but it was a construction code designed to realise the agenda of political reform. Secondly, the main classifications of timber structures in Yingzao-fashi – diange and tingtang – possessed distinct construction methods of vertical massing and horizontal connection respectively. These two methods, emphasising different architectural elements, are identified as two construction systems created for royal family and officials: royal construction and government construction. Such political status was the most explicit and understandable quality of official timber buildings in premodern China. Thirdly, the representative products of royal and government construction should be understood as symbols of imperial authority and administration in Chinese society. Moreover, a unique social class, scholar-officials, produced a large number of literary works in the Tang-Song period, focusing on the symbolism of specific timber structures rather than their formal and technical features. The literature was thus instrumental in creating the political meaning of timber structure. As the core content of this research, the political symbolism and literature of significant royal and government buildings are examined based on comprehensive interpretations of historical documents, including official records, philosophy, literature, and Chinese painting. In particular, the monarchs’ political philosophy for legitimising their authority and maintaining a mighty empire, exercised a critical influence over the political symbolism of timber structure, while the imperial civil service examination enabled scholar-officials to achieve the literary expression of that symbolism.

Declaration relating to disposition of project thesis/dissertation

I hereby grant to the University of New South Wales or its agents a non-exclusive licence to archive and to make available (including to members of the public) my thesis or dissertation in whole or in part in the University libraries in all forms of media, now or here after known. I acknowledge that I retain all intellectual property rights which subsist in my thesis or dissertation, such as copyright and patent rights, subject to applicable law. I also retain the right to use all or part of my thesis or dissertation in future works (such as articles or books).

…………………………………………………………… ……….……………………...…….…

Signature Date

The University recognises that there may be exceptional circumstances requiring restrictions on copying or conditions on use. Requests for restriction for a period of up to 2 years can be made when submitting the final copies of your thesis to the UNSW Library. Requests for a longer period of restriction may be considered in exceptional circumstances and require the approval of the Dean of Graduate Research.

ORIGINALITY STATEMENT

‘I hereby declare that this submission is my own work and to the best of my knowledge it contains no materials previously published or written by another person, or substantial proportions of material which have been accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma at UNSW or any other educational institution, except where due acknowledgement is made in the thesis. Any contribution made to the research by others, with whom I have worked at UNSW or elsewhere, is explicitly acknowledged in the thesis. I also declare that the intellectual content of this thesis is the product of my own work, except to the extent that assistance from others in the project’s design and conception or in style, presentation and linguistic expression is acknowledged.’

Signed ……………………………………………......

Date ……………………………………………......

‘I hereby grant the University of New South Wales or its agents a non-exclusive licence to archive and to make available (including to members of the public) my thesis or dissertation in whole or part in the University libraries in all forms of media, now or here after known. I acknowledge that I retain all intellectual property rights which subsist in my thesis or dissertation, such as copyright and patent rights, subject to applicable law. I also retain the right to use all or part of my thesis or dissertation in future works (such as articles or books).’

‘For any substantial portions of copyright material used in this thesis, written permission for use has been obtained, or the copyright material is removed from the final public version of the thesis.’

Signed ……………………………………………......

Date ……………………………………………......

AUTHENTICITY STATEMENT ‘I certify that the Library deposit digital copy is a direct equivalent of the final officially approved version of my thesis.’

Signed ……………………………………………......

Date ……………………………………………......

UNSW is supportive of candidates publishing their research results during their candidature as detailed in the UNSW Thesis Examination Procedure. Publications can be used in their thesis in lieu of a Chapter if: • The candidate contributed greater than 50% of the content in the publication and is the “primary author”, ie. the candidate was responsible primarily for the planning, execution and preparation of the work for publication • The candidate has approval to include the publication in their thesis in lieu of a Chapter from their supervisor and Postgraduate Coordinator. • The publication is not subject to any obligations or contractual agreements with a third party that would constrain its inclusion in the thesis

Please indicate whether this thesis contains published material or not: ☐ This thesis contains no publications, either published or submitted for publication (if this box is checked, you may delete all the material on page 2)

Some of the work described in this thesis has been published and it has been ☒ documented in the relevant Chapters with acknowledgement

(if this box is checked, you may delete all the material on page 2)

This thesis has publications (either published or submitted for publication) ☐ incorporated into it in lieu of a chapter and the details are presented below

CANDIDATE’S DECLARATION

I declare that:

• I have complied with the UNSW Thesis Examination Procedure • where I have used a publication in lieu of a Chapter, the listed publication(s) below meet(s) the requirements to be included in the thesis.

Pengfei Ma 17/ January/ 2020

Acknowledgments

I still remember that when I commenced my PhD study five years ago, my mentor, Prof. Xing Ruan, said to me: “Do not forget your original intention.” Now, at the final stage of my thesis writing, I can say I have always been following my original intention, exploring the cultural meaning of the great Yingzao-fashi, although there is still much more work to do surrounding this topic. My primary gratitude goes to him: his meticulous guidance has continuously kept my research on the right track over such a long duration. My research also greatly benefited from his remarkable insight, displayed in so many meetings with me. Several times the excitement of the discussion in our conversation led us to lose our sense of time totally. What I learned from Prof. Ruan is not only how to conduct scholarly research in a robust manner, but more importantly, also how to understand humans and our world from the lens of architecture.

The Chinese historians and sinologists, especially of Chinese architecture, definitely deserve my gratitude. Their scholarship in this field, as acknowledged in the footnotes and selected bibliography, laid the foundation for this dissertation. Also, I am immensely grateful to my joint supervisor, Dr Jayde Roberts. Her advice on the thesis structure contributed to the clear and logical expression of my arguments. She also provided me with much information about research on Chinese politics, which helped me clarify some key concepts in the dissertation.

Additionally, I am greatly indebted to Honorary Associate Prof. Harry Margalit, Dr Peter Kohane, Dr Maryam Gusheh, and Dr John Blair at the University of New South Wales; Prof. Zhang Shiqing and Prof. Chen Wei at South-east University (Nanjing); Prof. Zhao Chen at Nanjing University and Prof. Wang Qiheng at Tianjin University, for their constructive advice on my research. I also thank Mr Ian Perlman at the University of New South Wales and Dr Elmira Jamei at Victoria University (Melbourne) who gave me the opportunities to teach and develop the courses of Architecture and Urbanism in Asia and Architectural History and Analysis (Australian Architecture), and which enabled me to consider my research topic from a broader perspective.

Thanks to the University of New South Wales for awarding me a full PhD scholarship— the University International Postgraduate Award (UIPA), which financially supported my PhD research. Thanks also

for funds from the Graduate Research School that aided me to present my research in international scholarly conferences.

Two chapters (Chapter 4 and 6) of my dissertation contain similar content to my published paper: “Building Construction and Meaning: The Origin and the Occupation of Chinese Tingtang,” Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference of the Society of Architectural Historians, Australia and New Zealand. Wellington, New Zealand, July 4-7, 2018. I owe thanks to two anonymous reviewers and the conference editor, for their critical comments and editorial help.

A special debt is to my wife. Her unwavering support has granted me the freedom to explore my interest. Love is equally given to my parents and little girl, for they are always the sources of inspiration and impetus.

Content

Chapter 1

Introduction ...... 1

1.1 The construction code: Yingzao-fashi ...... 1

1.2 Politics and timber structure ...... 4

1.3 The ephemerality of Chinese timber structure ...... 10

1.4 Research methodology and sources ...... 15

1.5 Overview of each chapter ...... 19

Chapter 2

Literature Review ...... 25

2.1 Modern understanding of Chinese architecture ...... 25

2.2 Scholarship on Yingzao-fashi ...... 34

Chapter 3

Official Construction and Yingzao-fashi ...... 47

3.1 Official construction and non-official construction ...... 47

3.2 The construction departments and officials ...... 52

3.3 Yingzao-fashi and Li Jie ...... 58

3.4 Song utilitarianism and political reform ...... 64

Chapter 4

The Construction System and Political Status ...... 73

4.1 Damuzuo in Yingzao-fashi...... 73

4.2 Official construction systems ...... 81

4.3 The political status of timber structures ...... 90

4.4 Construction systems in Song paintings ...... 97

Chapter 5

Royal Construction and Political Symbolism ...... 109

5.1 Building height and vertical construction ...... 109

5.2 Tai structure and symbolism ...... 111

5.3 Dian: the modest expression of political symbolism ...... 125

5.4 Mingtang and political legitimacy ...... 131

Chapter 6

Government Construction and Tingtang ...... 141

6.1 The evolution of tang and ting buildings ...... 141

6.2 Government organisation and tingtang politics ...... 147

6.3 Song tingtang prose ...... 156

6.4 Parallel space and Chinese residences ...... 163

Chapter 7

Political Philosophy and Scholar-officials ...... 173

7.1 Official construction and political philosophy ...... 173

7.2 Social structure of premodern China and scholar-officials ...... 178

Conclusion ...... 185

Selected Bibliography ...... 189

Chapter 1

Introduction

1.1 The construction code: Yingzao-fashi

This research presents a historical study of timber structures in the official document Yingzao-fashi 营造法式 (Construction Methods and Standards) through the lens of politics. The main aim of this research is to attempt to answer the question: how did official timber construction and its buildings serve Chinese politics in premodern times? The symbolic meaning of important official buildings and how that symbolism is expressed are further explored in this thesis. It is finally argued that Chinese rulers, royalty and officials, designed and constructed their timber structures more as a political instrument to legitimise and rationalise their governance, which could be seen as a political response to the ephemerality of Chinese architecture. The relationship between the timber structure and the Chinese political system is examined through a textual analysis of historical documents. A combined study of Yingzao-fashi and the literature recording political activities is conducted in this research, attempting to examine the way in which government-led construction served Chines rulers over premodern times. At the commencement of this research, I explain the reason why Yingzao-fashi should be studied politically by exploring the nature of this official document.

Yingzao-fashi is of great value for studying Chinese traditional timber architecture. During premodern China, there was little literature recording the technical detail and standards of construction. The official documents for construction managed by governments were not produced until the Northern Song period (960 - 1127 CE).1 Issued by the Song court in 1103 CE, Yingzao-fashi was a systematic collection of official construction laws, standards, and statutes observed by the imperial departments of official construction and its builders. Yingzao-fashi aimed to provide them with authoritative guidelines for precise construction procedures and effective budget management, and it was also intended to instruct the craftsmen who worked under the officers supervising official construction. The document was compiled by Li Jie 李诫 (? - 1110 CE) who was an imperial superintendent of the Department of Construction. The construction items to which Yingzao-

1 Feng, Chinese Architecture and Metaphor, 2.

fashi applied, involved all types of official buildings. Having survived intact and in its entirety, Yingzao- fashi comprehensively and authentically recorded the architectural information about building construction sponsored and managed by the governments of the Song Empire.

Modern scholars, however, have studied the document more as a technical treatise.2 The 1,078-page work, consisting of 3,555 clauses, is not only the earliest but also the most comprehensive Chinese treatise on timber construction to survive. The document in its text and illustrations listed the typical patterns of structures and building components and elaborated their scale, form, and method of manufacture, which served as a significant source for modern scholars to analyse the construction techniques of Chinese architecture. Modern scholars have attached great importance to Yingzao-fashi and recognised it as the key to understanding Chinese architectural tradition. 3 Yingzao-fashi, as a construction code, powerfully represents the development of official Chinese architecture. The timber structure in Yingzao-fashi, therefore, could be seen as an archetypical representation of Chinese architecture.

Despite its technical importance, Yingzao-fashi in nature is an imperial code that was enacted by the Song court for eliminating corruption and waste in construction activities. There are many sumptuary regulations in the code for the evaluation of labour and material cost in construction. Premodern China had its own legal system. Over the Tang and Song dynasties, there were four levels of laws created and enforced in the imperial legal system: lv 律, ling 令, ge 格, and shi 式.4 Lv was the body that related to crime and punishment. Ling stipulated forbidden behaviour and items, while ge regulated the registration of citizens, rewards, and military recruitments. Shi was applied to norms that prescribed the standard processes of administration or the standard operation of imperial departments. All four levels had the same force of law. Yingzao-fashi, as a collection of construction laws, standards and regulations, belonged to the level of shi. In Volumes 16 to 28, there are sumptuary regulations elaborated for the construction cost of both material

2 Guo, “Yingzao Fashi: Twelfth-Century Chinese Building Manual,” 1-13. 3 Pan Guxi and He Jiangzhong, Yingzao-fashi jiedu 《营造法式》解读, 3. 4 The original types of the Song law system consisted of Lv, Ling, Ge, and Shi. When the Emperor Shenzong (1048-1085) came into power, he suggested that Lv as the law of the highest order, could not solve everything, and for matters Lv could not solve, the law court should follow the emperor’s order under Chi.敕. Consequently, he changed the nature of the Song law system into Chi, Ling, Ge, and Shi. See Tuo Tuo 脱脱，Song shi 宋史， Vol. 199, Xingfazhi 刑法志, “律不足以周事情，凡律所不载者，一断以敕;” Zhao Xu 赵旭. Tangsong falv zhidu yanjiu 唐宋法律制度研究, 40.

and labour for official buildings with distinct types and classes. In the English context, a code of law is “a type of legislation that purports to exhaustively cover a complete system of laws or a particular area of law as it existed at the time the code was enacted, by process of codification.”5 Hence I designate the word “construction code” to define Yingzao-fashi, which explains its nature more accurately.

Yingzao-fashi as a code is associated with politics. It is a direct product of a set of political reforms in the Northern Song dynasty. Compared to previous regimes, the Northern Song was one of administrative sophistication and complex social organisation, to such an extent that it led to disorganised management of construction activities.6 Since the Emperor Renzong period (1041 - 1048 CE), the Song rulers sought to prepare the empire thoroughly to respond to the potent military threat from neighbouring states.7 In this specific historical context, the Song rulers introduced a series of political reforms aiming to strengthen imperial finances and the military. Eliminating corruption and waste in construction activities through the standardised construction process was considered a significant measure which would strengthen the imperial economy. To standardise construction, the Song court compiled and enacted Yingzao-fashi, which was attributed to the political demand based on the social reality of the Song Empire, one of the most well-known dynasties in premodern Chinese history.

This thesis, however, is not an exegesis regarding the politics expressed in the text but an examination of how the timber construction, as presented in the code, represented Chinese politics in architectural form. Yingzao-fashi, as the primary source for this research study, describes specific timber frameworks in its text and depicts them in the illustrations provided, which are the primary research objects of this thesis. The overwhelming majority of buildings constructed for royal family and officials, such as royal palaces and government offices, followed the form of these timber frameworks. An investigation of the formal features and construction methods of the timber frameworks in Yingzao-fashi, could reveal the underlying design philosophy for official buildings, which is crucial to exploring the political meaning of Chinese architecture.

5 Chisholm, Encyclopædia Britannica, 632-634. 6 Qi Xia 漆侠, Wanganshi bianfa 王安石变法, 20. 7 Ibid, 54.

1.2 Politics and timber structure

This section is a response to the question of why the political interpretation of Chinese timber structure is necessary and why my research focuses on the structure as a whole rather than other architectural elements. The meaning of politics in a general Chinese context, in contrast to its Western interpretation, is discussed in the first place, through which I clarify the definition of politics in this thesis. Official construction is introduced as one of the core concepts throughout the thesis, and then I emphasise that significant buildings of official construction are an expression of political power and status which demonstrates the political importance of timber structures. The current scholarship on official construction and its products pay much attention to the technical problems, and little research has focused on the subject of politics. The extensive adaptability of timber structures featuring an interlocked framework, a more representative element of Chinese architecture compared to eaves brackets, is highlighted in the later parts of this section.

Politics is a multifaceted word. Politics in China was historically understood to be widely related to state order, rule, and governance, to some extent different to Western politics that derived from the Greek republican city-states. The English word “politics” normally corresponds to the word 政治 zhengzhi in modern Chinese. According to research by Lydia Liu, zhengzhi is a classical Chinese-character compound word that was used by the Japanese to translate modern European words and which were reintroduced into modern Chinese.8 In ancient Chinese literature, there are separate meanings for 政 zheng and 治 zhi. Zheng generally is defined with three meanings: the order and institution of a state, the power of the state in governing and administering, and lastly, the administrative activities of a monarch and ministers in a court. On the other hand, zhi refers to rule and governance activities.9 The Confucian classic Shangshu 尚书 (Book of Documents) presents the earliest mention of zheng and zhi in the literature, which states that “With the right approach, the administrative affairs of a state (zheng) can be handled (zhi) well.”10 Another classic, Zhouli 周礼 also recorded the specific government decrees for zheng and zhi.11 In addition, there is a specific chapter discussing how to deal with zheng in the well-known Confucian classic Analects.12 In particular,

8 Liu, Translingual Practice, 339. 9 Chen Fuhua 陈复华, Gudai hanyu cidian 古代汉语词典, 2016. 10 Shangshu 尚书, Biming 毕命, “道洽政治.” 11 Zhouli 周礼, Diguan 地官, “凡事致野役, 而师田作野民, 帅而至, 掌其政治禁令.” 12 Analects, Weizheng 为政.

Sun Yat-sen, the provisional first president of the Republic of China and the first leader of the Nationalist Party of China, offered a well-known interpretation of zhengzhi: “Zheng is the affairs of all people, and zhi is management, so managing the affairs of all people is politics.”13

In contrast, the English word “politics” derives from the Greek word politiká (Πολιτικά,) which means “affairs of the cities.” Citizens, or mostly commoners, were the primary participants of political activities since Greece was a parliamentary representative democratic republic. In the modern academic context of the West, politics is closely associated with the affairs of cities, resource acquisition, benefits and values, and social manipulation. Harold Lasswell defines politics as “who gets what, when, how”.14 David Easton defined politics as “the authoritative allocation of values for a society”.15 According to Adrian Leftwich, “Politics comprises all the activities of co-operation, negotiation and conflict within and between societies, whereby people go about organising the use, production or distribution of human, natural and other resources in the course of the production and reproduction of their biological and social life”.16 Bernard Crick argued that “politics is a distinctive form of rule whereby people act together through institutionalised procedures to resolve differences, to conciliate diverse interests and values and to make public policies in the pursuit of common purposes”.17

A historical distinction between premodern Chinese and Western politics is the commoners’ participation in the affairs of governance. In a society dominated by Confucianism, social strata were clearly divided, and there were few opportunities for commoners, the bottom of the social pyramid, to participate in the management of the country. The members of the royal family, particularly the emperors and their agents of officials (commonly from the gentry class) were rulers officially in charge of the state, and they had responsibility for making laws, managing the economy, and controlling public services. Politics in China was more recognised as the interaction between the ruling classes, the royal family and officials, in terms of social and governing authority or control. Although Michael Szonyi studied how ordinary people exercise

13 Sun Yat-sen, Sun Zhongshan quanji 孙中山全集, 65. 14 Lasswell, Politics, Who Gets What, When, How, 3. 15 Easton, The Political System: An Inquiry into the State of Political Science, 135. 16 Leftwich and Callinicos, What Is Politics: the Activity and Its Study, 103. 17 Crick, In Defence of Politics, 11-28.

political skills and gain influence, with a focus on imperial conscription in the Ming dynasty, he observed: “In the most traditional and narrow view, politics is mainly about states and their rulers.”18

In this dissertation, I narrow the scope of “politics” into the interaction of the royal family and scholar- officials, centring on the exercise of the power to rule and govern the state. Also, this dissertation is presented based on the understanding that only royalty and the scholar-officials, as rulers, shared political power and status in imperial China. Ancient China was ruled by dynasties, sometimes united under one dynasty but often governed by competing dynasties controlling different regions. Shihuangdi 始皇帝 (the first emperor of the Qin dynasty) who was formerly a king of the regional Qin state, claimed his emperor position applied to the entire Chinese mainland in 221 BCE. Indeed, any king of a regional regime who captured immense territory and gained dominance would become the emperor. To govern the huge empire, the emperors had to establish an administrative system of hierarchical governments, from the central court to regional counties, using designated officials, who in fact shared authority with the emperors to hold and practice government at all levels. Scholar-officials (士大夫) were the main body of government officials appointed by the emperor to perform day-to-day political duties after passing the imperial civil service examination (科举考试).

Royalty and officials had their specific forms of construction. Official construction (guanshi jianzhu 官式建筑) was a critical architectural concept in the discourse of Chinese architecture. Since the Ming and Qing dynasties, “guanshi jianzhu” has been a specific name for construction that was patronised and managed by the imperial administrative organs of central and regional governments and frequently mentioned by modern scholars in their research, especially Chinese architectural historians, as representative of Chinese architecture.19 Official construction produced architectural works: official buildings, including royal palaces; gardens; advanced monasteries; governmental offices (yamen 衙门); mansions of nobles and ministers (fudi 府邸); official residences; civil infrastructure such as city gates; walls; towers and landscapes; and some government-run facilities, such as rental estates and theatres (goulan washe 勾栏瓦舍 in the Song-Yuan period). The royal nobilities and officials were the main entities served by official construction. Compared to buildings constructed by commoners without any support from governments, official buildings usually

18 Szonyi, The Art of Being Governed: Everyday Politics in Late Imperial China, 4. 19 Wang Guixiang, “Zhongguo jianzhu de dianfan —— guanshi jianzhu” 中国建筑的典范—— 官式建筑.”

presented a more exquisite form and detail and were larger in scale, as governments were able to gain advanced materials, employ skilled artisans, and conscript a large number of workers. Significant works of official construction represented the highest achievement of Chinese architecture, which was often marked by the buildings of the well-known Forbidden City today.20

The Chinese emperors, whatever the dynasty, devoted much attention to official construction. They built the capital cities as the seat of political authority at a colossal scale and with a well-planned urban fabric. This is especially true for mighty dynastic rulers, such as Xianyang of the Qin dynasty, Chang’an of the Han and Tang dynasties, and Beijing of the Qing dynasty. Typically, Chang’an measured, for instance, five miles by six miles and was one of the largest cities in the world with 800,000 to 1,000,000 people around 750 CE, its heyday.21 The majority of buildings of official construction were built with timber structures in cities, ranging from gigantic palatial edifices to modest government offices and officials’ residential compounds. Although these timber structures were frequently repaired and rebuilt during dynasties and under new emperors, the basic construction methods and structural forms were never changed.

The modern scholarship on Chinese timber structure started with Liang Sicheng 梁思成, known as the father of modern Chinese architecture since he authored the first modern history on the subject. In 1927, he gained his master’s degree in architecture from the University of Pennsylvania where he received training in the Beaux-Arts programme. He then returned to China in 1928 and devoted the remainder of his life to spreading his understanding of, and appreciation for, Chinese architecture. Liang Sicheng’s research broadly explores the formal and technical nature of Chinese timber architecture. His research method was inevitably influenced by the Beaux Arts-based architectural training, which emphasised classical architectural forms and details. Following Liang Sicheng, however, Chinese scholars tended to focus on the technical and formal characteristics of timber structures.

A political exploration of the timber structure is also needed. As Nancy Shatzman Steinhardt states: “The decision to build as China had in the past, in any century as recently as the twenty-first, was conscious and,

20 Steinhardt, Chinese Architecture, 1. 21 Chandler, Four Thousand Years of Urban Growth: An Historical Census, (b).

in the case of the imperial monuments of Beijing, also political.” 22 The timber structures of official construction functioned not only for accommodating the living royalty and officials but, more importantly, also for identifying their political power and status as symbols in the hierarchical society of China. The expression of such symbolic meaning in assisting Chinese rulers to achieve stable and efficient governance of the vast empire could be examined through the construction methods used in timber structures, their formal features, appellations, and their general utility. In consequence, it is meaningful to explore how timber structure was created and used politically in premodern China.

Chinese timber architecture should be studied more holistically by examining the entire timber structure rather than single building components. “Wood joinery and the manipulation of timber more generally are unique aspects of Chinese architecture.”23 The contemporary understanding of Chinese architecture from Chinese research and scholarships obsessively focuses on a limited component —— dougong 斗拱 (eaves brackets), and in some measure, overlooks the importance of the timber structure as a whole. It was Liang Sicheng who was the first to claim the significance of dougong when he studied the form and structure of Chinese timber architecture.24 After that, dougong has been seen as a representative symbol of Chinese architecture generally.

Dougong, a unique structural element of the interlocking wooden framework, is one of the most important components in a building. Nevertheless, it actually cannot be detected in most construction works of premodern China. According to the construction code of the Tang and Song dynasties, Yingshanling 营缮令 (Code of Construction and Repair), the use of dougong was strictly prohibited for buildings of commoners, as it had been used as a symbol of the status and rank of royal families and officials. 25 Undoubtedly, the commoners’ buildings greatly outnumbered those of officials and royalty, which suggests

22 Steinhardt, Chinese Architecture A history, 5. 23 Ibid, 1. 24 Liang, A Picture History of Chinese Architecture, 90. 25 The Song Yingshanling can be accessed in the record of tianshengling 天圣令, a national code issued in the Tiansheng period (1023 - 1032). See Tianyige bowuguan 天一阁博物馆 and Zhongguo shekeyuan lishi yanjiusuo 中国社科院历史研究所, Tianyige cang mingchaoben tianshengling jiaozheng 天一阁藏明抄本天圣令校证, 661-662.

that the overwhelming majority of buildings were never installed with the component of dougong in imperial China.

In contrast to the constrained use of dougong, the timber structure was more widely used in premodern China. Chinese architecture is characterised as a unique structural form in that the skeleton of a building was formed by a network of interlocking wooden supports, known as the free-standing timber framework. The creation of timber structures can be traced back to the very earliest times of Chinese history. The articulated characteristic of the Chinese wooden frame emerged during the Neolithic period. Approximately 7,000 years ago, mortise and tenon joints were used to build wood-framed houses at Hemudu, a site in Zhejiang province.26 For several thousand years, the timber framework was consistently the dominant structural form of buildings in premodern China as well as in East Asia, whatever their function and size. Except for a few remote areas where stone structures dominated (such as central Fujian), all members of Chinese society shared the timber framework as the structural form of their buildings. The overwhelming majority of buildings, at all levels, ranging from the magnificent building complexes of the royal families to the tiny granary of the commoner family, were constructed with timber.

A large-scale timber structure was typically composed of hundreds of timber pieces based on geometry and logical organisation. The timber pieces interlocked with each other, using tenon-and-mortise joints. Most non-specialists would marvel at the numerous sophisticated timber elements of a building, but for experts, the construction followed a particular combination of logic. The arrangements of the system follow the original design and method of calculation for timber frame construction. To facilitate rapid installation and form a specific building paradigm, Chinese designers developed a modular system in which the basic unit referred to the component of gong, an eaves bracket set, which had been applied in the construction of the Tang dynasty and elaborated in Yingzao-fashi.

The structural framework, as the building skeleton, was the primary element for shaping a structure, producing the basic spatial configuration and building volumes. For a typical royal edifice, its spatial arrangement was related to the building function, while its interior structure largely determined the basic external appearance of the building. The wall, either brick or rammed earth, is a little elaborated element in

26 Zhejiangsheng wenwu guangli weiyuanhui 浙江省文物管理委员会 and Zhejiangsheng Bowuguan 浙江省博物馆, “Hemudu yizhi diyiqi fajue baogao” 河姆渡遗址第一期发掘报告, 42.

Chinese wooden architecture, as it only defined an enclosure of the structure, bearing no load other than the weight of its material. Even civil infrastructure and transportation features such as bridges, palanquins, and carriages, were installed employing a timber structure. Arguably, Chinese people lived in a built environment of timber, and premodern China to some extent is a timber realm. So, compared to dougong, the interlocking timber structure itself seems to be a more pervasive representative element of Chinese construction and represented the most fundamental feature of a Chinese-style building.

1.3 The ephemerality of Chinese timber structure

The political interpretation of timber structure is also a response to a core question in Chinese architecture. That is why the Chinese, within their vast territory, selected timber structure as their dominant architectural form for an immensely long period, rather than developing structures of other local materials. The physical properties of Chinese timber structure and the long history of their utilisation demonstrate an inherent contradiction at the heart of Chinese architecture: an architectural system with vulnerable and ephemeral material fostered a lengthy civilisation. Understanding this paradox is crucial to access the great Chinese architecture that has been deeply rooted in the unique Chinese political and social background. Premodern China, within the broad expanse of time and space for several thousand years, acquired a unique character which stimulated great Western interest. Modern scholars, both in China and beyond, frequently approach premodern China from multiple aspects of Chinese philosophy, arts, literature, history, science and religion. However, the architecture of premodern China, a significant creation of remarkable cultural longevity, has been studied less by modern academic research, especially Western research, in comparison to other subjects. Despite the well-known fact that Chinese architecture is characterised as an architectural system of timber, even architects know little about the construction methods and technical details of Chinese timber structure. A key reason for this lack of knowledge is that, in contrast to the abundant historical records and works of other fields, the sum of both existing historic buildings and ancient literature about architecture, is rather limited in China.

The Chinese timber structure is a vulnerable and ephemeral architectural system. To provide for habitation, Chinese people developed a creative structural system, a load-bearing timber framework formed by interlocking wooden members. Timber compared with hard natural stone is a rather flimsy material. It rots easily and is damaged without preservatives and the repair process. Over the premodern period in China, raw wood was consistently processed by merely modifying its shape and appearance. Even though the Chinese painted their timber for protection, this technique was only applied to some high-class buildings,

and the timber’s decorativeness was more favoured than the preservative effect. Basically, there were no advanced carpentry techniques employed in premodern times to change the natural vulnerability of timber structure. Consequently, the utilisation of raw wood without fireproof treatment gave rise to the pervasive destruction of timber structures. Most nationally significant structures vividly described in Chinese historical literature, especially magnificent palaces and temples, have entirely disappeared through time, having succumbed to fire or rotted and decomposed. While some single halls connected with monasteries (timber structures erected around the ninth or tenth century CE) still survive today in the Central Plain and southern China, they are few in number, and all have lost their original historical context.

From a common understanding based on natural Chinese geographic conditions, one of the reasons for the use of timber structure was cost efficiency. The dense forests covering the basin of the Yangtze River and the middle reach of the Yellow River of premodern China, provided abundant timber resources and made timber cheaper and more accessible than stone or brick.27 Nevertheless, this is not a convincing explanation. The availability of solid material is not the critical constraint in construction because, in China, stone was also easily obtainable in many places, and the mass production of bricks and tiles had been achieved around the third century BCE. 28 In fact, stone and brick were widely used as the construction materials for mausoleums and religious buildings like pagodas in premodern China. These materials were selected to express the concept of permanence in some specific building types. At the same time, large pieces of timber were no longer readily obtainable after the Song dynasty, especially for large-scale construction like palaces. Yingzao-fashi records a method of joining wood fragments into an integrated column, appearing as large trees that could be employed as large columns, but they were rather scarce in the Song dynasty.29

Another explanation for the widespread adoption of timber structure was its considerable adaptability and flexibility. Its adaptability is usually understood by scholars from the aspects of climate, geography, and

27 Liu Dunzhen 刘敦桢, Zhongguo gudai jianzhushi 中国古代建筑史, 6. 28 The bricks and tiles made in the Qin dynasty (221 - 207 BCE) and the Han dynasty (202 BCE - 220 CE ) were unearthed in abundance in archaeological excavations and gained wide praise for their high quality and decorativeness in Chinese history. These Qin bricks were often featured patterns of grids, sun, parallel lines, and some images of hunting and banquets, while the Han tiles were often patterned with the four mythical creatures in Chinese mythology: the blue dragon (青龙), white tiger (白虎), vermillion bird (朱雀), tortoise (玄武), and some other animals such as rabbits, deers, oxes, and horses. 29 Li Jie 李诫, Yingzao-fashi, Vol. 30, Damuzuo tuyang shiba 大木做图样十八 (The no.18 pattern of the major timber work).

seismic resistance.30 Chinese timber structure satisfied a variety of climate and geographical conditions and also various social and cultural backgrounds, in the vast territory and the ethnic diversity of China. The flexibility of timber structures allowed for variety in building forms as well as their construction processes. A free-standing Chinese timber framework can be enclosed by solid brick or rammed-earth walls, walls with windows and doors, removable screens, or even no walls at all, just exposed columns and spaces, such as landscape pavilions. A veranda may surround some buildings, creating a transition space between exterior and interior. Major building components were often produced and decorated based on local climate, architectural tradition, and available materials. For a timber structure building, the form of roof was little constrained and can appear in varied forms: flat, hip, mansard, single-sloped and cross-sloped roofs, compound-eave roofs, arch roofs, as well as domes.31

However, a more legitimate response to the apparent contradiction of Chinese timber structure is that Chinese architecture is not a static monument but a system of continuous renewal and regeneration. The physical properties of timber enable components of Chinese structures to be easily altered and replaced as needed. Even when the whole structure collapsed or burnt down, it could be rebuilt with the original style in mind in a short time, although it was not necessary and also impossible to keep the original form completely unchanged.32 It was common that timber structures were repaired or modified on the basis of actual requirements in premodern China.

The existing historic buildings and relevant historical records are evidence that Chinese timber construction was not a one-time event but a continuously replicating and duplicating process along with the durability of building functions that sometimes may be changed. As an example, the famed Forbidden City in central Beijing experienced several periods of destruction and restoration in its history. The initial construction of the main structures of the Forbidden City completed in 1420 CE were burnt down in a severe lightning storm merely one year later. The rebuilding was not launched by the imperial construction sector of Ministry of Works (工部) until 1440. Undertaking this great effort were thirty thousand artisans and thirty-six thousand soldiers, and the entire construction project was finished in only one and a half years. Another

30 Else Glahn, “Chinese Building Standards in the 12th Century,” 162-73. 31 For a comprehensive summary of the flexibility of Chinese timber structure, see Qiao Yun’s introduction to Steinhardt, Chinese Architecture, 5. 32 Steinhardt, Chinese Architecture, 2.

accident occurred in 1557 when fire again destroyed the three main halls of the Forbidden City plus five large gates of the palace; even the building foundations and balustrades made of limestone were burnt into powder in this fire. However, rebuilding these structures was completed just four years after their destruction. Were it not for the missing drawings and records of the previous restoration, the construction would have proceeded even more rapidly. The succeeding Qing dynasty, different from most of the previous feudal regimes in Chinese history, inherited the Forbidden City from the Ming dynasty as the palace of the new empire but renamed the palatial buildings and complexes to express the new occupation. Over the two and half centuries of occupation of the Forbidden City by Qing rulers, the renewal and rebuilding of the palatial buildings never ceased, granting the timber structures a vitality to sustain imperial politics.

Likewise, a great many archaeological discoveries also provide evidence that renewal and rebuilding were also frequently applied to religious buildings. For example, according to the historical record, construction of the famous Foguang Temple was started during the Northern Wei dynasty (471- 499 CE). The entire temple was then destroyed in a political movement against Buddhism taking place in 845 CE. The east main hall of the temple was rebuilt in the Tang dynasty (857 CE), while the side hall was constructed in 1137 CE (Jing dynasty) and repaired in 1351 CE (Yuan dynasty).33 It has been confirmed that most of the existing temple complexes were mixtures of structures built or repaired at different times. However, there is no evidence suggesting that the rebuilt and repaired structures were precisely as same as the previous ones. In other words, the structures installed all present different formal features and historical information, losing the original appearance of the building group when it was first built.

Some modern sinologists also have noticed and attempted to commend the ephemerality of Chinese timber structure. Arthur F. Wright has called attention to the great significance attached to the city ground-plan and the unsubstantial nature of the buildings, with the description of the early Chinese imperial capital as “urbs

33 Liang Sicheng 梁思成 initially investigated the Foguang Temple in the 1930s and identified the construction history of the temple structures. See Liang Sicheng, “Ji Wutaishan Fuoguangsi de jianzhu —— huicui zai yisi de Wei、Qi、Tang、Song de sige guli; huicui zai yidian de tangdai sizhong yishu” 记五台山佛光寺的建筑 ——荟萃在一寺的魏、齐、唐、宋的四个孤例; 荟萃在一殿的唐代四种艺术, 78. Following Liang Sicheng, modern scholars studied the temple intensively and produced a huge number of publications. Current scholarship on the temple history largely focuses on its east main hall and has proved that the hall underwent repairs during the Tang to Ming dynasty. See Zhang Rong 张荣 et al, “Foguangsi dongdadian jianzhu yange yanjiu” 佛光寺东大殿建置沿革研究, 44-47. Ren Sijie 任思捷, “Tang chu Wutaishan Foguangsi de zhenzhi kongjian yu zongjiao goujian” 唐初五台山佛光寺的政治空间与宗教构建, 22-28.

ephemera”.34 F. M. Mote explores Chinese attitudes towards their history with the argument that “Chinese civilisation seems not to have regarded its history as violated or abused when the historical monuments collapsed or burned, as long as those could be replaced or restored, and their functions regained.”35 Pierre Ryckmans (pseudonym: Simon Leys) examines the parallel phenomena of spiritual preservation and material destruction in the history of Chinese culture. He also sees the Chinese landscape as “material absence” of the past. “Continuity is not ensured by the immobility of inanimate objects; it is achieved through the fluidity of the successive generations.” [of buildings]36 These scholars realise not only the ephemerality of Chinese architecture but also its inherent insubstantiality which has not been given much attention by Chinese scholars. Yet, they appear to have not answered the question: how did the insubstantial architecture serve politics and society in premodern China?

The selection of timber structures may be understood by exploring the Chinese environmental view. Ji Cheng 计成 (1582 - 1642 CE) was a distinguished garden designer living in the Ming dynasty, who wrote Yuanye 园冶 (Garden Treatise), the first monograph dedicated to garden architecture in the world.37 In this seminal work, he elaborated on his understanding of the Chinese attitudes towards their built environment：

A building can be expected to exist for millennia, while few people can live over a hundred years. Therefore, we should only build structures to service our present life. There is no need to take our descendants into account when constructing buildings, as they probably would not be satisfied with the built environment we created.38

34 Wright, “Symbolism and Function: Reflections on Chang’an and other Great Cities,” 678. 35 Mote, “A Millennium of Chinese Urban History: Form, Time, and Space Concepts in Soochow,” 51. 36 Leys, “The Chinese attitude towards the past,” 285. 37 Conan, Perspectives on garden histories, 218. 38 Ji Cheng 计成, Yuanye 园冶, Vol. 5. This is not a direct translation but a summary of “……固作千年事, 宁知百岁人, 足矣乐闲, 悠然护宅.” The modern scholar Chen Zhi 陈植 supplied annotations to this monograph. See Chen Zhi, Yuanye zhushi 园冶注释, 60. All the ancient Chinese texts in this thesis are translated by the author unless otherwise stated.

This statement demonstrates the pragmatic attitude of the Chinese to architecture, but the irony is that Chinese people for generations seemed to be quite content with this architectural tradition —— most of them were living in buildings of timber structures before modern society.

Alternatively, we may also find another way to comprehend the contradiction of Chinese architecture from classic Daoist philosophy. The fundamental conception of Daoism, dao 道 (the way), denotes the principle that is the eternal truth and the source, pattern and substance of everything that exists. Laozi, the founder of philosophical Daoism and also a deity in religious Daoism and traditional Chinese myths, noted the basic principle of the world recorded in the classic Tao Te Ching:

Repeatability is the driving force of dao, and the vulnerable item is the object that Dao employs to fulfil its goal. All creatures on the earth are formed from those visible, while the visible is from the invisible.39

This statement describes the universal principle of the world operating from a Dao perspective; it revealed a basic perception of the Chinese towards the external world, that constantly repeated ephemerality achieves an enduring presence. This principle can also help to explain Chinese architecture. The architectural regeneration expressed by the continuous destruction and rebuilding is the spur to further development, and only vulnerable material is suitable for realising such repetition that is the nature of all progress. Indeed, the Daoism principle can be further applied not only to Chinese architecture but also to other aspects of Chinese civilisation. It underlies the historical evolution of politics and society —— the alternation of dynasties and the rebirth of political systems never ceased in China.

1.4 Research methodology and sources

This research is chiefly built on the interpretation of a wide range of historical documents. There are four sources of historical documents studied, namely official documents, Chinese Classics, literary works, and Chinese paintings. The official documents compiled by specific organs of governments encompass imperial laws, construction standards and technical regulations, and official historical books. The Chinese Classics

39 Laozi, Tao Te Ching, Chapter 40. “反者道之动, 弱者道之用, 天下万物生于有, 有生于无.”

present some deep-rooted ideas and concepts in Chinese society, which cast an enduring influence on Chinese culture. Creating literary works with a theme of specific architectural works was considered as a communication means for scholar-officials to express their political doctrines and ambitions. Compared to these historical texts, Chinese paintings, especially Song paintings, more directly offer the visual imagery of timber structures at that time.

Existing research methods on official timber buildings largely concentrate on interpreting technical documents and investigating actual buildings. In premodern Chinese history, there were only two official construction books elaborating building techniques, Yingzao-fashi in the Song dynasty and Gongcheng- zuofa-zeli 工程做法则例 (Regulations of Construction Methods) in the Qing dynasty. Liang Sicheng described them as “two grammar books” of Chinese architecture.40 When Liang Sicheng received a copy of Yingzao-fashi from his father in 1925, he found the text of the book inaccessible because of its complicated technical content and myriad technical terms. 41 To make its text readable, the pioneers of Chinese architecture research, Liang Sicheng and Liu Dunzhen, with their students put much effort into investigating actual historic buildings in order to understand the content and terminology in the historical records. Over the following decades, the two pioneers collected large amounts of information on Chinese timber structure and produced a great number of publications.

However, these interpretations and investigations have limitations. In order to introduce the language of Chinese architecture fully, Liang Sicheng had to adopt modern architectural appraisal techniques including plans, façades, sections, and elevations, to analyse traditional timber structure. Following Liang Sicheng’s path, Chinese scholars managed to translate the text of Yingzao-fashi and Gongcheng-zuofa-zeli into modern architectural expression, a Western-based architectural language. Nevertheless, it is noteworthy that some Chinese scholars seem to have noticed defects in these methods. Within the last twenty years, some scholars, such as Zhao Chen and Zhu Yongchun, have attempted to explore the unique expression of Chinese

40 The Chinese document Gongcheng-zuofa-zeli was translated by Liang Sicheng as “Structural Regulation” and introduced as “official regulations for architecture design in the Ch’ing (Qing) dynasty, published by the ministry of works in 1735.” See Liang and Fairbank, A Picture History of Chinese Architecture, 93. However, similar to Yingzao-fashi the content of Gongcheng-zuofa-zeli is more than structures and include many construction details, such as the estimate of material and labour cost in construction. Also, the Chinese word 工程 is usually translated as Construction in English. So, in this thesis, the name of the document is translated as “Regulations of Construction Methods” by the author to express its accurate Chinese meaning. 41 Liang Sicheng, Yingzao-fashi zhushi, 8. For more on the lives of Liang, see Fairbank, Liang and Lin: Partners in Exploring China’s Architectural Past.

architecture, though they still address issues around the formal analysis of timber structures.42 In particular, Jiren Feng took an approach of exploring Yingzao-fashi differently, on the basis that previous efforts focused mainly on interpreting the text and make it accessible to modern readers. In his book, he maintained that “behind the detailed technical methods and government rules are distinctive cultural factors of contemporary building practice.”43 Feng’s study demonstrates the existence of a botanical metaphor in traditional Chinese architecture — bracketing likened to flowers, branches, and foliage, which was just speculation in previous research.44

Actual historic buildings failed to provide enough accurate architectural information for investigators. As noted early in this chapter, the amount of building heritage is limited. Some of the famous timber buildings originally built hundreds and even thousands of years ago, have experienced rebuilding and repair several times during their lifespan. More importantly, all these historic buildings have lost the original and historical circumstances that form the setting for them in terms of which their value can be fully understood and assessed in their cultural context. Although some heritage buildings, like the well-known Forbidden City, are still treated as a landmark of the city, in today’s China, most of them have been surrounded by modern steel and concrete construction in urban areas. It is difficult for modern people to understand what the role of these heritage buildings in history is, especially if they limit their exploration only to the physical buildings. Consequently, the research in this thesis contains little reference to actual historic buildings.

Textual analysis is the central methodology of this research. In contrast to the technical nature of timber structures, Chinese architecture should be more valued for its political qualities. To explore the political function of the official timber structure, this research needs to restore the cultural context of official buildings in contemporaneous historical conditions, particularly in the Song dynasty. Some relevant historical facts are summarised through textual analysis of historic books and employed to support important claims or suggestions in subsequent chapters of the research. For example, texts from official documents are used to display the imperial laws or regulations for construction, historic events, and the life story of some officials. The main textual sources of official documents are Yingzao-fashi, Yingshanling, Ershisi shi

42 Zhao Chen 赵辰, Limian de wuhui 立面的误会, 120; Zhu Yongchun 朱永春, “Guanyu Yingzao-fashi zhong diantan tingtang yu yuwu jige wenti de sibian” 关于《营造法式》中殿堂、厅堂与余屋几个问题的思辨, 82-89. 43 Feng, Chinese Architecture and Metaphor, 7. 44 Ibid, 138.

二十四史 (Twenty-four histories), Song-huiyao-jigao 宋会要辑稿 (Song government manuscript compendium), Taipin yulan 太平御览 (Readings of the Taiping Era), and Wenyuan Yinghua 文苑英华 (Finest blossoms in the garden of literature).45 In some chapters, texts of the Chinese Classics were cited to express the doctrines or theories of Chinese philosophical schools, containing Confucianism, Legalism, Daoism, and Mohism. Scholar-officials in the Tang and Song period created a large number of literary works, ranging from poems, daily records, to prose, that focus on specific architectural works and which are significant evidence for some of the author’s arguments.

The documents of the Chinese Classics and literary works are rarely mentioned in the research on Chinese architecture, especially by Chinese scholars. For some early scholars studying Chinese timber structure, their primary goal was to reveal the technical and formal nature of Chinese timber structure,46 and therefore historical documents outside those techniques were often ignored. In the recent decade, some young scholars have started to focus on matters around structures. For example, Qiao Xunxiang, as a PhD candidate at Southeast University, has conducted preliminary research on the official construction organisation implemented in the Song dynasty.47 In his dissertation, several arguments are presented based on the study of the official history book of Songshi 宋史 (History of the Song Dynasty) and the official government record of Song-huiyao-jigao. The cultural meaning of timber structures, nonetheless, attracts little academic attention, thus leading to the fact that few scholars are expected to explore the meaning of Chinese architecture from the perspective of philosophy and literature.

Chinese literary works are another important source of evidence to clarify the political function of Chinese timber structure in this research. Substantial numbers of works of Chinese poems and prose with an architectural theme are quoted in Chapters 5 and 6. These literary works created by scholar-officials mainly

45 Song-huiyao-jigao 宋会要辑稿 is a Qing dynasty collection of Song dynasty writings on Song government, edited by Xu Song 徐松 and others who extracted the manuscripts in part from the Ming dynasty Yongle Encyclopedia (永乐大典 1408). Taipin yulan is a massive Chinese leishu encyclopedia compiled by a number of officers in the Song dynasty during the first era of the reign of Emperor Taizong. It included citations from about 2,579 different kinds of documents spanning books, poetry, odes, proverbs and steles to miscellaneous works. Wenyuan-yinghua 文苑英华 is an anthology of poetry, odes, songs and writings from the Liang dynasty to the Five Dynasties era. 46 The scholarship on Chinese timber structure from early scholars, such as Liang Sicheng and Liu Dunzhen, is reviewed in Chapter 2. 47 Qiao Xunxiang 乔迅翔, Songdai jianzhu yingzao jishu jichu yanjiu 宋代建筑营造技术基础研究, 1.

emphasise the role of official structures in political communication and imperial governance rather than discussing the formal characteristics of buildings. As a result, scholar-officials built a tight connection between politics and timber structures, and therefore literary works are significant sources for exploring the political function of official construction and how timber structures realised that function.

Analysis of paintings is also employed as a research method in this dissertation. Traditional Chinese painting sought to represent more than the apparent physical appearance. It sought to express the underlying energy or spirit, and that spirit was manifested through the interaction between the artist and the physical landscape.48 Nevertheless, there is ample evidence to indicate that some landscape paintings were created in highly realistic descriptive style during the Tang and Song period, for example, the painting of Qingming- shanghe-tu 清明上河图 (Along the River During the Qingming Festival). A national institution of painting art was established by the Song court to train professional painters and a specific painting type, Jiehua 界画 (Rular painting), was specially designed for capturing subjects like palaces, urban scenes, vehicles and ships. In Chapter 4 and 6, some of the critical characteristics of official construction systems in Tang and Song official construction are explored based on the analysis of several specific landscape paintings.

1.5 Overview of each chapter

Chapter 2 presents reviews of the literature on Chinese architecture and Yingzao-fashi separately. The modern scholarship on Chinese architecture is classified into the study of form and meaning. The research on the form of Chinese architecture that can date back to the 17th century has occupied the mainstream of research on Chinese architecture. That research has produced a substantial number of publications, and these works are chronologically reviewed in this chapter. In both China and Western academe, research involving the study of the meaning of Chinese architecture, to which this thesis belongs, is rather limited. The publications on Yingzao-fashi are also reviewed in Chapter 2. Exploring Yingzao-fashi is one of the topics that attract much attention from modern scholars studying Chinese architecture. Since Yingzao-fashi was discovered in 1919, architectural researchers both in China and abroad, dedicated themselves to interpreting this book with the purpose of understanding the technical components and foundation of Chinese architecture in past decades. The history of research on Yingzao-fashi can be divided into three periods, and

48 The painting theorist Xie He 谢赫 living around the 5th century established the six principles of Chinese painting, and the first one is spirit resonance (气韵生动) that refers to the flow of energy encompassing theme, work, and artist. See Briessen, The Way of the Brush: Painting Techniques of China and Japan, 111-112.

each period witnessed the emergence of numerous research findings. Chinese scholars, especially Liang Sicheng and his students, have made an immense contribution to the interpretation of Yingzao-fashi from multiple perspectives.

Chapter 3 introduces the background of official construction and Yingzao-fashi and attempts to answer the question: what did Chinese rulers value regarding the construction of their buildings? The author first clarifies an inappropriate juxtaposition of official construction and vernacular architecture in the current study on Chinese architecture. The second section of this chapter then presents a historical review of imperial construction departments, documents, and influential officials to help explore the attitude of Chinese rulers towards their construction affairs. The main research focuses of this chapter include the imperial construction department of Jiangzuo-jian 将作监 (Construction Supervision), the imperial construction code Yingzao-fashi, and the imperial construction officials Yuwen Kai 宇文恺 and Li Jie. Based on an examination of the historical background of Yingzao-fashi and contemporaneous political philosophy, Song utilitarianism and its resulting Xining Reform (熙宁变法), the last section of this chapter explores the source of Yingzao-fashi. In conclusion, the core argument of Chapter 3 is that despite the sophistication of construction techniques employed, Chinese rulers only valued the function of official construction works to realise their political intentions, typically political reforms. The resultant building code is, therefore, a manifestation of both politics and technical progress.

Chapter 4, 5 and 6 together explore the political function of Chinese timber structure. The political function is defined in this research as the physical presence and symbolism of official buildings that enable Chinese royalty and officials to maintain their dominant status and control the state. Official construction was the dominant building system in premodern Chinese society through which the marked impact of politics on Chinese timber structure was realised. There were three key roles that official buildings needed to perform in the imperial political discourse. First, the royalty and officials in the highly regulated political hierarchy were identifiable through the form of Chinese timber architecture. Second, Chinese emperors required their structures to communicate their aspirations to their subjects in order to legitimise their political authority. Third, official buildings needed to meet the requirements of the imperial bureaucracy and administrative system at the levels of both central court and regional government. A clear political hierarchy, a widely accepted supreme political authority and a well-organised bureaucratic and administrative system were indispensable for running a stable society in premodern China.

Chapter 4 argues that the political status of Chinese timber structure should be understood from a broader concept —— the construction system. This chapter first offers a study of the formal features of two basic framework types of official construction, diange 殿阁 and tingtang 厅堂, that were both depicted by the illustrations in Yingzao-fashi. The diange and tingtang frameworks represent two original construction methods for shaping a timber structure, vertical massing and horizontal connection respectively. Following an analysis of the terminologies describing timber frameworks in Yingzao-fashi, the research then suggests that there were no specific structural types in Yingzao-fashi, and all the technical details and regulations about official construction could be understood based on two construction systems, royal construction and government construction. Both were rigorously defined and included specifications for construction methods, specific regulations for building details, the modular system, and provisions for building form and scale.

These two construction systems produced specific building types that were frequently mentioned in the texts of Yingzao-fashi. The construction of buildings in the two systems followed exclusive methods and regulations expressed by fa 法 in Yingzao-fashi, which essentially reflected the standardisation of timber construction. Such a high degree of standardisation reduced the importance of understanding detailed construction techniques, a situation which was required for a society where builders did not understand detailed construction procedures.

The formal distinctions of buildings with different political status are also explored through the text of Yingshanling and the Song paintings in this chapter. The construction law, Yingshanling, introduced strict regulations for some of the formal elements that can be used to identify the political status of a timber structure. The Song paintings, particularly the Qingming-shanghe-tu, offer adequate visual images of contemporaneous timber buildings and provides significant material to explore the relationship between the outward appearance of Song timber buildings and their political status.

The meaning of the word “political symbolism” also needs to be narrowed in this research. This dissertation defines the political symbolism of Chinese timber structure as the use of architectural works of official construction to express the power and status of royalty and officials or the emperors’ desire to recruit talented people. “Symbolism” can be used to describe any mode of expression which, instead of referring to

something directly, refers to it indirectly through another medium.49 In Chinese architecture, symbology can take the form of a city layout, building plan, location, shape and scale, or the pattern of specific building components, which, as a medium, expressed the meaning of auspiciousness or good wishes.50 This research in later sections of the chapter discussed how the political symbolism of timber structures facilitated the exercise of the power to rule and govern the state and to enable political interaction between emperors and scholar-officials. Over premodern Chinese history, regimes were continuously replaced by violent revolutions, but imperial governance required a modest and implicit means by which to exercise power. As a result, symbolism served as a vital instrument for identifying status. Following the royal construction system, Chinese emperors created building works, magnificent in volume and scale, to symbolise their authority. The symbolism of some specific timber structures also established a form of communication between rulers and their subjects, as subjects accepted the symbolic meaning, thus recognising the legitimacy of the emperor’s rule.

Chapter 5 explores the symbolic meaning of several critical royal buildings as a response to how the supreme political authority was widely accepted in premodern China. The vertical construction model had been widely applied in works of royal construction in the Song dynasty. Nevertheless, modern scholars have not fully understood why the Chinese chose such a construction method to build important royal buildings and how these structures served the Chinese rulers’ political aims. To find answers to these two questions, I firstly, present research on some of the basic types of royal buildings, including tai, que, and dian. Although many modern scholars argue that Chinese architecture stresses building width rather than height,51 in Chapter 5, I examine the importance of building height, a factor greatly emphasised by the construction method of the diange framework, within early Chinese habitation. The typical products of vertical construction and their symbolism are introduced based on the analysis of relevant historical literature. Following that, this chapter scrutinises the form and features of significant palatial halls from the Qin to Song dynasty. Finally, a particular building type of royal construction, Mingtang, is introduced in this chapter as an exception, one which expressed the symbolic meaning of the mandate to rule from heaven.

49 Chadwick, Symbolism, 1. 50 Wu Qingzhou 吴庆洲, “Zhongguo minju jianzhu yishu de xiangzhengzhuyi” 中国民居建筑艺术的象征主义, 6. 51 The relevant literature is discussed at the beginning of Chapter 5.

There are two core arguments presented in Chapter 5. First, the political function of royal buildings was realised through the symbolism of structures built by the vertical construction method in premodern China. Second, this symbolic meaning was understood by the Chinese through literary works like poems. The archaeological discoveries and historical documents have proved that, in early Chinese history, people developed a tradition of attaching importance to building height, and further, high structures gradually became an architectural symbol of rulers’ power and status. The vertical construction model of official construction was created due to the rulers’ preference for tall buildings. As a typical product of the vertical construction model, tai, a timber structure with very high rammed-earth foundations, was built in large numbers as the symbolic buildings of state kings and nobilities during the Spring and Autumn Period and the Warring States Period. Political symbolism, initially attached to physical structures, was finally transformed into specific linguistic symbols that were widely understood by later generations of Chinese people. From the Qin-Han period forward, dian, replacing tai, became the generic name of important structures of palaces and monasteries, and building height gradually lost its highly emphasised element in royal construction, especially halls of palaces. However, the vertical construction method was retained as the standard construction model of royal construction to produce magnificent building volumes and superb aesthetic appearance until modern China. Mingtang, as another typical product of the vertical model, was consistently used by rulers as a symbol of the cosmos to authorise the legitimacy of their rule throughout premodern China.

Chapter 6 investigates how government buildings served a well-organised bureaucratic and administrative system and how the political ambition of scholar-officials was expressed through the archetypical work of government construction, that is tingtang buildings. The evolution of tang and ting is discussed first in this chapter. The political ambition of scholar-officials is the desire to obtain an appointment to become a government official or to seek a higher government post in the imperial bureaucracy and administrative system. In premodern China, being an official was the means by which scholars could achieve their idea about how to make society stable and well-managed. Government construction offered architectural solutions to operate the administrative system and to accommodate officials daily work and living. The main structures of government offices and officials’ dwellings shared the same construction method that produced a set of flexible parallel spaces which could satisfy officials’ need for offices as well as their daily living needs. Scholar-officials treated the main structures of government offices and their mansions as manifestations of political authority.

The second section of this chapter explores the operation of the central administrative system in the Tang- Song period, with a focus on the tingtang structures of the central government, particularly Zhengshi-tang 政事堂 (tang for administrative affairs) and Du-tang 都堂 (tang for management). These buildings, as core offices of the central government, became the symbols of top administrative power. The functional adjustment of these tingtang buildings reflected the underlying power struggle between emperors and prime ministers, which was caused by their political ambition. Notably, in this period, scholar-officials created a specific literary form, architectural prose, to express their political enthusiasm. Similar to the political symbolism of royal construction in literature, these works were also the non-physical expression of the political function of government construction.

Chapter 7, as the final chapter, attempts to establish a relation between the evolution of official buildings and the change of political philosophy about how rulers legitimised their authority and maintained a mighty empire in Chinese imperial history. The evolution of political philosophy in prominent Chinese dynasties is reviewed first with an exploration of its expression in official construction. This chapter then examines the social structure of imperial China, the education background of scholar-officials and the selection of imperial officials, as a response to the research question: Why were scholar-officials able to engage in and realise the political function of official construction?

Political philosophy in imperial China is generally considered as multi-faceted, covering the major schools of classic Chinese philosophy such as Confucianism, Daoism, Legalism, Mohism and their later development. Chinese rulers since the Zhou dynasty all applied some of the classical principles derived from these schools to help them govern society. However, a few distinguished emperors developed their own independent understanding of these principles during their reign, which might be formed, for example, by heeding the warning from the collapse of preceding dynasties. The classic principles, on the other hand, justified monarchs’ further consideration and learning within a framework of the “good society” that, to an extent, was reflected in the formal features of official construction works, especially royal buildings. Officials were the practitioners of the classic governing principles as well as mediating the emperors’ interpretation and understanding. From the Sui dynasty forward, monarchs selected government officials through the imperial civil service examination, establishing a strong relationship between the literati and imperial governance. Indeed, this unique social class of premodern China, the scholar-officials, were largely responsible for the political use of Chinese architecture.

Chapter 2

Literature Review

2.1 Modern understanding of Chinese architecture

Chinese architecture has been approached by modern scholars, mainly from two perspectives: its form and meaning. The study of form aims to lay bare the formal and technical characteristics of Chinese timber structure by investigating actual buildings and interpreting relevant technical literature. In comparison, the study of meaning explores the design ideas and intellectual sources of architecture and city construction, based on the social and cultural context. In other words, the study of form attempts to answer the question: what are the formal qualities of Chinese timber structure? The study of meaning searches for reasons why the Chinese built structures in such a unique style.

Early Western modern research on Chinese architecture focuses on the general introduction to its types and forms. The initial study dates back to the aesthetic of “Chinoiserie” popularised in the 18th century —— the European interpretation and imitation of Chinese and East Asian artistic traditions, especially in the decorative arts, garden design, architecture, literature, theatre and music. Western researchers at that time, including Jean Nieuhoff (1618 - 1672 CE), William Chambers (1723 - 1796), and George Macartney (1737 - 1806), started to introduce Chinese architecture to Europe through a large number of photographic records as well as text narratives.

Jean Nieuhoff was a Dutch traveller who wrote about his journeys to Brazil, China and India. In 1654, he was designated as an embassy steward going to visit the Qing emperor of China, aiming at gaining trading rights on China’s southern coast. During this trip, Nieuhoff was explicitly appointed to illustrate as many of the cities, palaces, temples, and other noteworthy buildings of China in their natural form. He remained in China until 1657, and at his homecoming in the next year, he entrusted his notes and annotations to his brother Hendrik. Hendrik produced a substantial study of China, with many images and much text. Finally, in 1665, these richly illustrated records from Jean Nieuhoff were published by the Amsterdam publisher,

Jacob van Meurs.1 William Chambers, based in London, was a Scottish-Swedish architect. Between 1740 and 1749, employed by the Swedish East India Company, he made three voyages to China, where he studied Chinese architecture. In 1757, by reviewing his experience in China, William Chambers published a book on the Chinese design of buildings, furniture, dresses, machines, and utensils, which had a significant influence on contemporary Western taste at the time.2 In 1772, he developed his Chinese interests further with his Dissertation on Oriental Gardening. 3 George Macartney, 1st Earl Macartney, was a colonial administrator and diplomat. He, in 1792, was appointed the first envoy of Britain to China. Although the diplomatic corps was ultimately not successful in its primary aim of opening trade with China, numerous secondary purposes were attained, including a first-hand assessment of the strength of the Chinese empire. Macartney’s journey from the embassy to China included observations and opinions which have become famous for portraying the West’s view of China.

From then on, more Western scholars paid attention to Chinese architecture. Over the following 19th century, British scholars James Fergusson(1808-1886), Joseph Edkins(1823-1905), and Banister Fletcher(1866- 1953) further described building types and forms of Chinese architecture in their publications.4 Subsequently, the German sinologist Stephen Wootton Bushell (1844-1908) and Oskar Münsterburg (1865-1920) published their books on Chinese art in 1905 and 1912, respectively, both containing chapters discussing Chinese architecture. 5 The German architect, Ernst Boerschmann (1873-1949) wrote the monograph Chinesische Architektur in 1925 after he finished extensive investigations on architecture and history while he was in China from 1906 to 1909.6 Different from the general introduction of previous studies, his work attempts to interpret Chinese architecture based on an unprecedented multi-dimensional analysis regarding historiography, art, and cultural anthropology. Ernst Boerschmann’s effort immensely expands the previous Western research approach to Chinese architecture. More importantly, the Finnish-born Swedish art

1 Nieuhof, Het gezantschap der Neêrlandtsche Oost-Indische Compagnie, 1. 2 Chambers, Designs of Chinese Buildings, Furniture, Dresses, Machines, and Utensils, 1. 3 Chambers and Chet-Que, Dissertation on Oriental Gardening, 4. 4 Fergusson, A History of Indian and Eastern Architecture, 2; Fletcher, A History of Architecture on the Comparative Method, 5. Joseph Edkins initially published his article, Chinese architecture, in the journal of Monthly Report of North China Branch of Yadong Society in 1890. This paper was then collected in Zhonguo yingzaoxueshe huikan 中国营造学社汇刊 (Proceedings of Society for the Study of Chinese Architecture) by Chinese scholars. See Edkins, “Chinese architecture,” 24. 5 Bushell, Chinese art, 49-70; Münsterberg, Chinesische kunstgeschichte, 8. 6 Boerschmann, Chinesische architektur, 1.

historian Osvald Siren, in the fourth chapter of his book A history of early Chinese art (first published in 1930), offered a more comprehensive understanding of Chinese architecture with a review of its evolution from the Han to the Ming dynasty.7 Osvald Siren had been aware of distinctive features of the timber structures in different periods of premodern China and evoked a sense of the evolution of Chinese architecture, albeit with a limited research span.

The primary goal of these early Western studies was to introduce Chinese architecture to the West. They successfully illuminated the general characteristics of Chinese architecture and augmented Western scholars’ knowledge of Chinese architecture. However, the relevant information available to Western academics was very limited, as they could not get full access to Chinese buildings and local literature. Thus, most of the early Western research merely involved formal elements of Chinese cities, gardens, and buildings, and few of them elaborated on specific techniques and methods of construction. None of them, for example, noticed the social and cultural symbolism underlying the lengthy process of Chinese architectural evolution.

Japanese scholars conducted further systematic research on the form of Chinese architecture from the 1920s. To search for the source of architectural ideas in their own country, some Japanese academics, including Ryuzo Torii 鸟居龙藏, Sekino Tadashi 关野贞, Ito Chita 伊东忠太, Ito Seizo 伊藤清造 and Tokiwa Daijo 常盘大定, visited China and carried out much field research in the 1920s to 1930s to examine Chinese heritage buildings. Their surveys provided subsequent architectural scholars with a substantial amount of raw data and information on the heritage buildings they investigated, which laid a foundation for the follow- up study of Chinese architectural history. From 1925 to 1939, their research findings were published as books: Chinese Architectural History (支那建築史) 8 , Chinese Architecture (支那の建築) 9 , Chinese Buddhism Relics (支那の仏教史跡)10, and Chinese Cultural Relics (支那文化史跡).11 These scholars all graduated from, and later taught in, the Imperial University (University of Tokyo), Japan’s top academic institution at the time. Their educational background enabled them to study Chinese architecture with a

7 Sirén, A history of early Chinese art, 1. 8 Ito Chuta 伊东忠太, Shina kenchiku-shi 支那建築史, 2. 9 Ito Seizo 伊藤清造, Shina no kenchiku 支那の建築, 1. 10 Ito Chuta, Shina no bukkyō shiseki 支那の仏教史跡, 1. 11 Tokiwa Daijo 常盘大定 and Sekino Tadashi 关野贞, Shina bunka shiseki 支那文化史跡, 1.

systematic methodology. They identified the inadequacies and limitations of previous European scholars’ studies on Chinese architecture and claimed their research methods were superior: interpreting relevant literature and investigating actual heritage buildings. There is a clear presentation on the methodology for studying Chinese architecture described in the monograph Chinese Architectural History: “there are two research methods of studying Chinese architecture; one is the interpretation of relevant historical literature, and the other is the investigation of actual historic buildings. If these two approaches can corroborate each other, the finding should be considered as authentic.”12 Such a methodology of mutual verification was widely adopted by subsequent Chinese scholars to research deeply on Chinese architecture. Also, Japanese academics started to become aware of the importance of studying the historical and cultural context that Chinese architecture conveyed. For example, Ito Chita analysed Chinese history and religions in his treatise, which, he believed, strongly influenced Chinese architecture and art.13 However, albeit of considerable academic credibility, Japanese research studies merely focused on the specific buildings they investigated, mostly Buddhist temples and pagodas.

Murata Jiro 村田治郎 is another Japanese scholar who devoted himself to study Manchurian and Chinese architectural history prior to World War II. He joined the Dalian South Manchuria Railway (SMR) Company in April 1924, teaching architecture in the South Manchuria Industrial Technical School. In 1928, he published a summary of architecture in Manchuria.14 Jiro later led the Manchuria Architectural Association and produced a number of research fruits in the Journal of Manchuria Architectural Association. 15 In April 1937, he returned to Japan and taught in the Kyoto Imperial University. From 1938 to 1940, Jiro Murata visited China several times and investigated many heritage sites in North China and during the 1940s and 1950s published his related research.16

The Japanese scholarship on Chinese architecture, in no small measure, stimulated the enthusiasm of Chinese scholars to study the architectural legacy of their ancestors. Liang and his wife Lin Huiyin 林徽因, who also studied at Pennsylvania and became an equally renowned scholar, conducted numerous

12 Ito Chut, Shina kenchiku shi 支那建築史, 13. 13 Ibid, 26. 14 Murata Jiro 村田治郎, “manshū kenchikushi no gaiyō” 満州建築史の概要, 4. 15 Murata Jiro, “tōyō kenchiku keitō shiron” 東洋建築系統史論, 45(544)-47(546). 16 Murata Jiro, kyo isaoseki 居庸関, 1.

investigations of Chinese historic buildings with the support of the organisation, the Society for the Study of Chinese Architecture (中国营造学社).17 Surprisingly, they discovered timber buildings built around the ninth century that had never been found by previous Western and Japanese researchers, due to the immense size of China and the difficulty of travel.18 Liang also studied the classic construction treatises of Chinese architecture: Yingzao-fashi and Gongcheng-zuofa-zeli and attempted to translate these ancient documents into modern Chinese so as to make it understandable to scholars. Integrating literature research and heritage investigations, Liang summarised the evolution of Chinese architecture and the main features of its architectural form, emphasising timber structure, in his publication A Pictorial History of Chinese Architecture. He identified the uniqueness of Chinese architecture compared to other building systems worldwide and accepted that the timber framework was the key element shaping the building form of Chinese architecture.19

Nevertheless, Liang still employed the methods that he learned from the educational system of Western architecture to analyse Chinese architecture. Due to his educational background of Beaux-Arts in the University of Pennsylvania, his research principally investigated Chinese buildings using the modern architectural modes of expression such as elevations, plans and sections and stressing the proportion and composition of the facades of Chinese buildings. He also suggested that the flexibility and adaptability of Chinese timber structure largely matched the principles of the modern structures, typically reinforced concrete, where windows can be opened freely on the walls that are created as enclosures, bearing no load other than the weight of their own material.20

17 The Society for the Study of Chinese Architecture (SSCA) was the earliest non-governmental academic organization in China, specializing in the study and preservation of traditional Chinese architecture. It was founded in 1930 by Zhu Qiqian 朱启钤, a leading member of the transportation department under the Beiyang Government. During the 1930s and 1940s, scholars of the society conducted much pioneering research on Chinese architectural history. 18 In 1937, an architectural team of the SSCA led by Liang Sicheng discovered the main hall of the Foguang Temple that was a relic of the Tang Dynasty. His wife Lin Huiying found an inscription on one of the rafters, which suggests the building was initially constructed in the Dazhong third year of the Tang dynasty (857 CE). Liang Sicheng confirmed the date accuracy by claiming that the building matched with known information about Tang buildings. 19 Liang, A Picture History of Chinese Architecture, 62. 20 Ibid, 82.

Another pioneer in the historical research of China, Liu Dunzhen 刘敦桢, completed his architectural training in Japan in 1921. As a colleague of Liang Sicheng, he also participated in the heritage investigations organised by SSCA. Different from Liang Sicheng, Liu Dunzhen attempted to understand Chinese architecture, not from Western theory, but more from the architectural typology and historical evolution of China. In his monograph History of Ancient Chinese Architecture in 1965 (published in 1980), Liu Dunzhen first analysed the influence of the natural environment on architecture and the structural types of timber architecture in China. Then he chronologically examined the architectural exemplars based on a view of typology, including cities, palaces, residences, temples, and mausoleums, from the Neolithic period to the Qing dynasty (1636 - 1912). His book provides a comprehensive and chronological review of Chinese architectural history and is of considerable academic value. It is an essential reference for understanding architectural forms and types in different periods of premodern China.

Following Liang Sicheng and Liu Dunzhen, Chinese researchers, especially their students, have devoted much effort to the interpretation of technical terms and the formal features of Chinese architecture in recent decades. The Chinese scholars who made a significant contribution to this field include Chen Mingda 陈明达, Fu Xinian 傅熹年, Pan Guxi 潘谷西, Guo Daiheng 郭黛姮, Liu Xujie 刘叙杰. They see uncovering the technical nature of timber structures as the primary goal of studies and emphasise the significance of interpreting technical literature and evaluating actual structural exemplars. For instance, Chen Mingda’s research on the timber structure system applied geometric methods for exploring the proportionality of the renowned building façade and claimed that the Chinese buildings matched the standard rules of Western architecture.21 These Chinese scholars have produced an abundance of work on the architectural history of premodern China since the 1980s. Finally, the five-volume series of monographs, History of Ancient Chinese Architecture, published in 2009, assembled these scholars’ research findings and offered a systematic and comprehensive review of premodern Chinese architecture. However, it is noteworthy that this treatise on Chinese architecture pays little attention to the social and cultural context of Chinese architecture.

Meanwhile, Japanese and Western scholars continued their studies on Chinese timber architecture. They devoted much effort to studying building types in particular geographic areas or historical periods of China. Tan Tanaka 田中淡 is one of the most important scholars studying Chinese architecture in recent decades.

21 Chen Mingda 陈明达, Yingxian muta 应县木塔, 41.

Since the 1980s, he produced a series of publications about Chinese architecture, gardens and building techniques. From 1981 to 1982, he came to the Nanjing Institute of Technology as a visiting researcher and studied Chinese garden and architecture there. In 1989, Tan Tanaka published the book Research on the history of Chinese architecture, which applied the latest archaeological achievements and research methods. This treatise is considered one of the most important works on Chinese architecture from Japanese scholars after World War II.22 In addition, the scholar Mizuno Seiichi 水野清一 examined the grotto architecture in Yungang and Longmen 23 , while Komai Kazue 驹井和爱 studied the history of the Chinese cities, particularly the Bohai city.24

Since 1965, Ronald G. Knapp, as a cultural geographer, has been carrying out research on the cultural and historical geography of China’s countryside and pursuing the study of folk architecture in rural China. His influential book China’s Old Dwellings is an insightful attempt to understand the environmental “design” of Chinese timber structure from an architectural, geographical, historical, and broad cultural perspective.25 Nancy Steinhardt, the professor of East Asian art at the University of Pennsylvania and curator of Chinese art at Penn Museum, has devoted herself to studying Chinese architecture and construction techniques for decades. Much of her research focuses on problems that result from the interaction between Chinese architecture and regional culture at China’s borders, particularly to China’s north, northeast, and northwest. Her research fields involve the planning of premodern Chinese cities, architecture in specific dynasties, and the surviving traditional timber structures. It is worth mentioning that Nancy Steinhardt edited the five- volume series of monographs History of Ancient Chinese Architecture and published its English edition A History of Chinese Architecture in 2002. Moreover, she assembled some of the Chinese scholar Fu Xinian’s academic papers and published them in English as the book Traditional Chinese architecture : twelve essays, which contains an unparalleled range of research topics on Chinese timber structure.26 In 2019, Nancy Steinhardt published her new book Chinese Architecture A history. This book is a comprehensive survey of

22 Tan Tanaka 田中淡. Chugolu kenchikushi no kenkyu 中國建築史の研究, 1. 23 Mizuno seiichi 水野清一, Kumo Sekkutsu 雲崗石窟, 1; Mizuno seiichi, Ryūmon sekkutsu no kenkyū 龍門石窟の研究, 1. 24 Komai Kazue 驹井和爱, Chaina kyapitaru Bokkai kenkyū 中國都城渤海研究, 1. 25 Knapp, China’s Old Dwellings, xv. 26 Fu Xinian, Steinhardt, and Harrer. Traditional Chinese Architecture: Twelve Essays, xv.

Chinese architecture, from the earliest walled cities and the visions of the first emperor to the buildings of the 21st century.27

Furthermore, some Western scholars started to pay attention to the architectural documents of premodern China. Klaas Ruitenbeek, for example, translated and annotated the Ming dynasty literature on carpentry, Luban Jing 鲁班经, with a comparative analysis of its different editions.28 Focusing on the textual basis of common building practices, his detailed exegesis underscores the association of building crafts with ritual and convincingly demonstrates that traditional vernacular architecture in China goes beyond the application of craft to a link with monumentality. Ruitenbeek also briefly examines the better-known official documents for imperial buildings, Yingzao-fashi and Gongcheng-zuofa, in his book. In addition, a number of other Western scholars also studied Yingzao-fashi, their work being reviewed in the next section.

Through investigating historic buildings and interpreting relevant literature on building techniques, the Chinese, Japanese, and Western scholars have all made tremendous contributions to uncovering the formal features of Chinese architecture and have produced a wealth of research outputs. In contrast, there is minimal research on the meaning of Chinese architecture. The most famous work in this field is thought to be the book, Cathay’s Idea: Design theory of Chinese Classic Architecture (华夏意匠) written by Li Yunhe 李允禾, which analyses the general design theory of Chinese architecture from multiple perspectives involving history, philosophy, literature, politics, and religion.29 Hou Youbing 侯幼彬 in his treatise Architectural Aesthetics of China (中国建筑美学) explores the primary form of Chinese timber structure and courtyard, the underlying motivation of timber structure development, and the Chinese artistic conceptions that are rooted in the Chinese mode of life and expressed by Chinese architectural forms. However, even with clear research directions and methods, these scholars’ arguments are founded on the investigation of archaeological discoveries and a limited number of historic buildings rather than the study of the historical literature that can reveal building functions in their social and political context. Therefore, their arguments tend to be speculative interpretations, lacking adequate evidence.

27 Steinhardt, Chinese Architecture A history, 1-7. 28 Ruitenbeek, Carpentry and Building in Late Imperial China, Lu Ban Jing, 1. 29 Li Yunhe 李允鉌, Huaxia yijiang 华夏意匠, 1. This book has greatly influenced the academics of Chinese architectural history and theory since 1980s. See Ding Yao 丁垚 and Zhang Yu 张宇, “Yanjiu zhongguo jianzhu de lishi tubiao —— 20 nianhou kan yijiang” 研究中国建筑的历史图标—— 20 年后看《意匠》, 106.

In particular, the scholars Ronald G. Knapp and Xing Ruan edited a publication series called Spatial Habitus: Making and Meaning in Asia’s Architecture.30 The series draws on the original research of established as well as younger scholars and emphasizes the interactive and meaningful relationship between people and their built world. Books in this series explore the socio-cultural, historical, and environmental factors that influence the structure and meaning of Asia’s architecture, ranging from the buildings, settlements, and cities, to the landscapes of more than half the world’s population. Through richly illustrating photographs, line drawings, and maps, research in this series focuses on the ways in which various factors shape built forms and explores how meanings are transmitted through architecture.

Research on the form of Chinese architecture has occupied the mainstream of modern scholarship on Chinese architecture. Timber structures as the quintessence of Chinese architecture have attracted much attention by modern scholars who intended to clarify its technical and formal characteristics. Conversely, the study of meaning in Chinese architecture is somewhat limited for multiple reasons. First, some scholars believe that Chinese architecture is more closely related to shape, material, technique, and built environment than to economy, society and politics.31 They tend to explore architectural form and techniques employed by premodern China, following the research directions and methods created by the early scholars in association with Western architectural theory. For instance, Liang Sicheng adopted a modern architectural appraisal such as plan, section, and elevation, to analyse traditional timber structure.32 Osvald Siren and Chen Mingda utilised geometric methods to study plan layouts and the façades of some historic buildings.33 Furthermore, even though many researchers acknowledged the importance of the cultural driving force of architectural evolution, they believe that the meaning of Chinese architecture must be studied based on the establishment of the theoretical framework that covered the comprehensive study of form. Without such a context, the study of meaning would lack support and become inconsequential. However, the fact is that the limited number of building samples and lack of literature have restrained the research on form and has

30 There have been six books published in this series on Chinese architecture. See Atkin, Cody, and Steinhardt. Chinese Architecture and the Beaux-Arts. Feng, Chinese Architecture and Metaphor; Musgrove, China’s Contested Capital; Steinhardt, Chinese Architecture in an Age of Turmoil, 200-600. Flath, Traces of the Sage; Lala, Diversity in the Great Unity. 31 Wang Guixiang 王贵祥, “Jianzhushixue de weiji yu zhengbian” 建筑史学的危机与争辩, 6-15. 32 Liang, A Picture History of Chinese Architecture, 156-157. 33 Chen Mingda, Yingxian muta 应县木塔, 41.

inhibited it from developing an integrated theoretical framework of Chinese architecture. This is probably the core issue hindering a modern understanding of the country’s architecture.

Essentially, this issue is a product of the understanding noted earlier that architecture could be understood only through its physical presence. To avoid such bias, people need to understand Chinese architecture from an alternative viewpoint: non-physical expression. It is the adaptability and regenerative capacity of Chinese timber that diminished the importance of its physical nature. Thus, the political functions of Chinese architecture, which can be independent of its physical form, were expressed non-physically through literature in a society where the literati possessed significant roles in Chinese political life. In this way, a building could consistently exert its influence as a virtual symbol of specific meanings, even though its physical structure had disappeared entirely. With repeated mentions in the literature over a lengthy history, the building as a symbol would firmly take root in people’s consciousness and become part of their traditions. As Cary Liu observed: “In China, the imperishability [buxiu] of words predominates over physical durability. An edifice’s enduring name links it forever with persons, places, or events, whereas its built reality is only temporal.”34 This phenomenon can be understood as a non-physical survival of Chinese timber structure. Consequently, studies of the meaning of Chinese architecture need to concentrate more on research into Chinese literature and historical records.

2.2 Scholarship on Yingzao-fashi

In 1919, Zhu Qiqian 朱启钤 visited the Jiangnan library and found the Ding manuscript of Yingzao-fashi, which was collected by the bibliophile Ding Bing 丁丙 (1832 - 1899) and saved in his library of Baqianjuan lou 八千卷楼 (Eight-Thousand Volume Pavilion). Since then, generations of scholars have contributed a significant effort to studying Yingzao-fashi and produced abundant research findings over the last 100 years. In general, the modern scholarship on Yingzao-fashi can be divided into three periods: 1920s to 1949, 1949 to 1980s, and 1980s to the current time as discussed below.

34 Liu, “Chinese Architectural Aesthetics: Patterns of Living and Being between Past and Present”, 139.

2.21 1920s to 1949

Modern scholarship on Yingzao-fashi started with textual criticism of the document. After Zhu Qiqian reissued the Ding edition of Yingzao-fashi (the edition found by Ding Bing) in 1920, he was well aware of the textual issues with this manuscript and decided to re-edit it. The erudite bibliographer and philologist, Tao Xiang 陶湘, was designated as the chief editor. Working with the scholar Kan Duo 阚铎, Tao Xiang consulted a large quantity of ancient literature and historical records. Then, by critiquing the text using philological methods, he re-organised the layout of the manuscript and largely restored the original edition issued in the Northern Song dynasty. In 1925, Tao Xiang and Kan Duo published the Tao edition that offers a solid foundation for following scholars to study Yingzao-fashi. From 1933, Liang Sicheng and Liu Dunzhen, working in the Society for the Study of Chinese Architecture (SSCA), commenced the collation of Yingzao-fashi again, based on the colophon of the Gugong edition, another edition found in the Forbidden City. Compared with the Tao edition, the Gugong edition of Yingzao-fashi was of higher quality, as it combined the achievements of scientific surveying and mapping of actual buildings.

Driven by the findings of the Ding edition of Yingzao-fashi, Zhu Qiqian created SSCA as a particular academic organisation to research Chinese architecture. In the 1930s, he invited Liang Sicheng and Liu Dunzhen to join the group as leading scholars. Liang Sicheng and Liu Dunzhen, together with other researchers in SSCA, carried out large-scale surveying and mapping of historical buildings around China. The team adopted a new research method, combining literature study and the survey of actual structures which was a groundbreaking approach at that time. SSCA did a considerable amount of fieldwork in Shanxi, Yunnan, and Sichuan provinces, surveying the existing buildings constructed in the Tang-Song period. Relying on the journal Proceedings of the SSCA (中国营造学社汇刊), scholars in SSCA published a significant amount of research. Research on actual buildings led the research on Yingzao-fashi and was a significant breakthrough from the limitations of purely textual analysis. Liu Dunzhen, apart from participating in the collation of Yingzao-fashi when he worked in SSCA, carried out valuable critiquing of the Yingzao-fashi text. His research has been included in Liu Dunzhen corpora.35

The surveys noted above recorded numerous works of premodern Chinese architecture that were never discovered by previous scholars. More importantly, SSCA established a scientific research framework to

35 Liu Dunzhen, Liu Dunzhen quanji 刘敦桢全集, Vol. 10, 56.

study Chinese architecture. During the eight years from 1932 to 1940, SSCA created a set of scientific working methods and principles of architectural conservation. They also established a research framework to evaluate Chinese architecture when they worked in the Lizhuang area in Sichuan, including methods of surveying heritage buildings, a drafting standard for mapping, and the principles of verification between the available literature and details of actual heritage buildings.

Yingzao-fashi, produced nearly one thousand years ago, is a rather obscure text due to its complicated technical content and myriad terms. Zhu Qiqian also had realised the value of the terminology when he found the manuscript copy. He tried to organise SSCA to translate these ancient architectural terms into modern Chinese words, thus making them accessible today. One of the first tasks of the organisation was to collect the words and descriptions involving construction and architecture from ancient documents. This work could offer a source of references for interpreting the terminologies used in Yingzao-fashi. From the 1930s to 1940s, Liang Sicheng devoted himself to conducting a systematic collation and annotation of the text of the document. He produced many line drawings of actual heritage buildings and attached photos to illustrate the text because there were few illustrations for technical terms in Yingzao-fashi. Moreover, for some difficult technical terms, he provided detailed interpretations using modern Chinese. Nonetheless, for historical reasons, these interpretations and annotations were not published until 1983.

Except for Chinese learning, the earliest studies on Yingzao-fashi were offered by Japanese and Western scholars. Naito Torajiiro 内藤虎次郎 (better known as Naito Konan 内藤湖南, 1866-1934) presented one of the earliest reviews of this compilation of studies.36 Paul Demieville also reviewed the text of Yingzao- fashi and introduced it to the West.37 At that time, little Western scholarship on Chinese architecture was accessible. Treating both the technical features of Yingzao-fashi and the bibliographical data, Demieville submitted the world’s first scholarly study of a part of the Yingzao-fashi. However, he was not capable of discussing the major timber work, which he evaluated as the most important part of Yingzao-fashi. He suggested that ambiguous terms in these chapters could be understood if one sought assistance from builders and artisans with the aid of illustrations in the Yingzao-fashi.

36 Naito Torajiiro 内藤湖南, “Eizo boshiki no shin’in bon” 營造法式の新印本, 797-799. 37 Demieville, “Che-yin Song Li Ming-tchong Ying tsao fa che,” 213-264.

In 1929, another Japanese scholar Ito Seizo 伊藤清造 studied the stonework and carving techniques in Yingzao-fashi. He identified the main elements of stone balustrades described in Yingzao-fashi and interpreted each term by the illustrations he drew. His study was probably the earliest identification of these architectural elements that are not indicated in Yingzao-fashi illustrations. With his knowledge of the Japanese system of stone carving, Ito also offered a preliminary study of the four carving methods of Yingzao-fashi.38

Walter Perceval Yetts in 1930, recovered eighteen folios of Yingzao-fashi illustrations of the colour-painting system from a manuscript fragment of the Yongle Dadian 永乐大典 found in England. He suggested that these pictures resembled the original Song style more than any other images in all existing copies of Yingzao- fashi.39 From the 1940s to the 1960s, more and more comprehensive studies on construction techniques in Yingzao-fashi started to be produced. From 1939 to 1943, Takeshima Takuichi’s 竹岛卓一 (1901-1992) commentaries on the technical methods of Yingzao-fashi appeared in Japanese journals, which prompted critical reviews by Japanese scholars. On the basis of his previous publications, he completed a three-volume monograph on Yingzao-fashi in 1970, which demonstrated that he was one of the most important contributors to the field. 40 The work encompassed all building systems in Yingzao-fashi, which was unprecedented. In particular, his work on the peripheral timber work was probably the earliest comprehensive study of that aspect of Yingzao-fashi in the world. Takeshima also stressed that the origin of the architectural methods in the Yingzao-fashi would be the most important means of determining the building code’s place in Chinese architectural history.

2.22 1949 to 1980s

It is acknowledged that the majority of scholarship on Chinese architectural history after 1949, the year when the People’s Republic of China was founded, directly or indirectly, inherited the research methods and

38 Ito Seizo 伊藤清造, “Eizo hoshiki to kotei saho” 營造法式と工程做法, 1. 39 Yetts, W. Perceval,“A Chinese Treatise on Architecture,” 473 - 92; Yetts, W. Perceval, “A Note on the ‘Ying Tsao Fa Shih’,” 855 - 60; Yetts, W. Perceval, “Writings on Chinese Architecture,” 116 - 31. 40 Takeshima Takuichi 竹岛卓一, “Eizo boshiki no kachi: Mono o iu shiryo” 營造法式の价值, 19-26; Takeshima Takuichi, Eizo boshiki no kachi 營造法式の研究, 1.

academic tradition of SSCA.41 For a long time, most of the subsequent case studies on premodern Chinese architecture depended on the survey data and drawings produced by SSCA. From 1949 onwards, a nationwide survey was conducted throughout China, and more timber structures built around the twelfth century of the Tang, Song, Liao, and Jing dynasties were found. Among these buildings, the hall of Meian Temple in Zhaoqing is the oldest surviving timber structure in the Lingnan areas of China, which was built in the second year of the Song Zhidao reign (996 CE). These discoveries increased the number of surviving cases of Song architecture and offered more actual buildings to verify the relevant records in Yingzao-fashi.

Liang Sicheng’s research before 1949 was published in this period. During the 1960s, another scholar of SSCA, Chen Zhongshi 陈仲世, identified the publication date of the South Song editions of Yingzao-fashi by analysing the use of characters. He found some conventionally used characters at that time were replaced by other words in some years, because they were taboo in relation to the emperor’s name. Following Chen Zhongshi’s study, Liang Sicheng completed his treatise, Annotation of Yingzao-fashi (Volume 1) in 1972 but it was not published until 1983. In his book’s preface, The editions of Yingzao-fashi over eight hundred years, he introduced the source and transmission of the book.42 However, he did not know that there had been another original edition of Yingzao-fashi published in the South Song dynasty, the Shaoding edition (published in the Shaoding period of the Southern Song dynasty), so only the two original publications, Chongning and Shaoxing, were mentioned in the preface.

In 1978, a Yingzao-fashi research group, comprised of Liang Sicheng’s former assistants Xu Boan 徐伯安 and Guo Daiheng, was created in the Faculty of Architecture of Tsinghua University. The group, supervised by the scholar Mo Zongjiang 莫宗江, started to re-edit Liang Sicheng’s draft document interpreting the text of Yingzao-fashi. In 1983, ten years after Liang’s death, these drafts were published as the book Annotation of the Yingzao-fashi.43 Liang Sicheng had unscrambled the meaning of the ancient architectural text by applying modern Chinese standards and was the first to provide readers with comprehensive interpretations and illustrations of Yingzao-fashi. This seminal work, assembling a considerable amount of painstaking labour from the scholars of SSCA and Tsinghua University, was considered the preeminent academic treatise

41 Wang Guixiang, “Zhongguo yingzao xueshe de xueshu zhilu” 中国营造学社的学术之路, 83. 42 Liang Sicheng, “Babaiyunian lai Yingzao-fashi de banbeng” 八百余年来《营造法式》的版本, 3. 43 Liang Sicheng, Yingzao-fashi zhushi 营造法式注释, 1.

on the terminology of Yingzao-fashi. In 2001, the series of Liang Sicheng Corpora was published, and the Annotation of the Yingzao-fashi was included as Volume 7 of the series.44

Following the pioneer Liang Sicheng, Chinese scholars, such as Xu Boan, Guo Daiheng, Chen Mingda and Pan Guxi, made significant contributions to the interpretation of the text and terminology of Yingzao-fashi. These efforts render the classical masterpiece as a readable document today. Xu Boan and Guo Daiheng first offered a detailed explanation of the terms moat, stone works and major carpentry in Yingzao-fashi through an article published in1984. 45 This work marked the beginning of their long-term research on the terminology of specific works in Yingzao-fashi. From 1962 forward, they produced a series of publications focusing on terms such as carving, decoration, painting, and eave brackets. Their study addressed some of the specific terminologies that were not involved in Liang Sicheng’s research.

Before 1949, Chinese scholars’ research on Yingzao-fashi mainly focused on the introduction and general interpretations of the book. Since 1949, their study switched to specific works and chapters of the manual. There are 34 chapters in the main body of Yingzao-fashi. The chapters about the regulations elaborate on the details of official construction, including location planning (orientation, levelling, and foundations), stonework (plinth, platforms, stele, and carving), major timber work (the timber structural system), and peripheral timber work (nonstructural components and decorations). In addition, wood carving, woodturning, sawing, bamboo work, tile work, clay work, polychrome painting, brickwork, and kilning (the production of tiles and bricks) were also detailed in the main document.

Among these works, Damuzuo 大木作 (major carpentry) was frequently studied as an essential part of Yingzao-fashi as it refers to the structural framework of buildings. Liang Sicheng and Liu Dunzhen did not present any comprehensive research on this feature, while Chen Mingda, who was an assistant of Liu Dunzhen in SSCA, devoted himself to studying the structural frameworks independently during the 1970s. Summarising his research, Chen Mingda published a treatise on the major timber work in 1981 which introduced the forms of multiple eaves brackets, discussed the modular system in Yingzao-fashi, and

44 Liang Sicheng, Liang Sicheng quanji 梁思成全集, Vol. 7, 3. 45 Xu Bo’an and Gu Daiheng, “Song Yingzao-fashi shuyu huishi —— haozhai、shizuo、damuzuo zhidu bufen” 宋《营造法式》术语汇释——壕寨、石作、大木作制度部分, 6-14.

explored how it determined the scale of timber buildings. He also attempted to clarify the design method adopted for timber structures that were vaguely articulated in Yingzao-fashi.46 In addition, Xu Boan, He Jianzhong, and Ma Bingjian 马炳坚 explored the assembly of eaves brackets and the building scale in Yingzao-fashi as well in their journal articles.47

Chinese scholars also endeavoured to understand timber frameworks in Yingzao-fashi from the perspective of modern mechanics. In 1976, Chen Mingda, in cooperation with Du Gongchen 杜拱辰, a specialist in structural mechanics, analysed the mechanical characteristics of timber structures by mathematical calculation, based on the description and illustrations in Yingzao-fashi. They suggested that the timber frameworks in Yingzao-fashi were designed through the rigorous calculation of beam bending strength. Chen Mingda and Du Gongchen, for first time, studied timber structures in Yingzao-fashi by applying the professional knowledge of modern science. Another scholar, Wang Tian 王天, also presented his research on Yingzao-fashi based on the theory of statics.48 However, it is questionable whether the Song builders did careful calculations when they constructed their buildings, as there was no text involving that in Yingzao- fashi. These scholars have largely clarified the formal features of timber frameworks and functions of eaves brackets recorded in Yingzao-fashi.

Although early scholars Zhu Qiqian, Liang Sicheng, and Liu Dunzhen had attempted to examine the processes of construction design in Yingzao-fashi, they failed to present a systematic theory for it. Chen Mingda, following them, made significant contributions to this field. From the 1960s, he summarised the previous works of many scholars and identified the characteristics of architectural techniques in the Song dynasty. He claimed that specific methods of architectural design, based on structural mechanics and the modular system of caifen 材份, had been shaped and applied in construction practices no later than the

46 Chen Mingda, Yingzao-fashi damuzuo ynajiu 营造法式大木作研究, 59. 47 Xu Bo’an, “Yingzao-fashi dougong xingzhi jieyi tanwei”《营造法式》斗栱形制解疑、探微; Ma Bingjian 马炳坚, “ Puzuo, chutiao, douke and others —— xuexi zaji” 铺作、出跳、枓科及其它——《营造法式》学习札记, 15; He Jianzhong, “Shiyi xiangyuxi ── du dougong de jiegou qiyuan yu Yingzao-fashi” 疑义相与析 —— 读《斗栱的结构、起源与〈营造法式〉》, 27. 48 Wang Tian 王天, Gudai damuzuo jingli tantao 古代大木作静力探讨, 1.

Northern Song Dynasty. These methods could satisfy the design requirements of buildings at different scales and grades and help achieve the standardised production of building components.49

2.23 1980s onwards

From the 1980s onwards, scholars in China gained more support for their development and research, thereby publishing a large number of research works on Yingzao-fashi. From 1983 to 1995, Chen Mingda personally conducted a particular study on the interpretation of the text and terminology of Yingzao-fashi and wrote many articles about these features of Yingzao-fashi. Unfortunately, he passed away before publishing these essays, and his drafts are kept in the Faculty of Architecture of Tianjin University. Professor Wang Qiheng, the former assistant of Chen Mingda, is collecting Chen’s posthumous manuscripts and will publish them in the near future.

Since the 1980s, Fu Xinian has devoted himself to the textual analysis of Yingzao-fashi and the investigation of its circulation. Specifically, he introduced the discovery of the Gugong edition of Yingzao-fashi and summarised the history of all editions since the Song dynasty.50 To correct the oversight of Liang Sicheng’s research on the edition of Yingzao-fashi, Fu Xinian attached an annotation for the preface when it was included in Liang Sicheng Corpora in 2001.51 In the preface of the newest re-publication of Yingzao-fashi in 2007, he identified a number of deficiencies in the Tao edition and explained the modifications in the re- publication.52

Another leading scholar that should be mentioned is Zhang Shiqing 张十庆 who further expanded research on the major timber work. During the 1990s, Zhang Shiqing exerted much effort to study the traditional timber structures in Japan and South China. In particular, he investigated the relationship between the Chinese timber structure in the Tang-Song period (from the 7th - 13th centuries) and its Japanese counterpart,

49 Chen Mingda, Yingzao-fashi damuzuo ynajiu 营造法式大木作研究, 52. 50 Fu Xinian, “Jieshao gugong bowuyuan cangchaobeng Yingzao-fashi” 介绍故宫博物院藏抄本《营造法式》, 17. 51 Liang Sicheng, Liang Sicheng quanji 梁思成全集, Vol. 7.

52 Fu Xinian, “Xinying Taoxiang fang songkeben Yingzao-fashi jieshao” 新印陶湘仿宋刻本《营造法式》介绍, 5.

in terms of scale, modular system, and spatial configuration.53 In addition, he contrasted the technical characteristics of structures in Yingzao-fashi with actual cases in South China.54 In the past two decades, he produced a series of publications focusing on the modular system and structural components, which considerably advanced the scholarship in this area. More importantly, Zhang Shiqing broke through the tradition of technical and formal research on the major timber work and started to consider the impact of the construction process and the source of Chinese timber structure. He asserted that the two frameworks depicted in the illustrations of Yingzao-fashi were created based on two kinds of tectonic thinking, horizontal connection and vertical stack.55

Chinese scholars such as Fu Xinian, Wang Qiheng, Wang Guixiang, and Zhang Shiqing also produced more research about the design methods and thoughts after the 1980s. Specifically, Fu Xinian extended the range of research targets from the individual building to building groups and even to the scale of urban planning. He argued that a set of design and planning methods using the modular system and grid control had been created in China no later than the period of the Northern and Southern dynasties (420 - 589 CE).56 Wang Qiheng identified a design method of grid modules based on his study of draft drawings of Yangshi Lei 样式雷, a family of architectural designs in the Qing dynasty. He further pointed out that such a method had been pursued in Song architectural paintings after he reviewed relevant historical records.57 At present, the scholarship on design methods still concentrates on the level of control over proportions and modular systems, lacking more in-depth exploration of the underlying cultural and social background.

53 Zhang Shiqing 张十庆, Zhongri gudai jianzhu damu jishu de yuanliu yu bianqian 中日古代建筑大木技术的源流与变迁, 1. 54 Zhang Shiqing, “Yingzao-fashi de Jishu Yuanliu jiqiyu Jiangnan Jianzhu de Guanlian Tanxi”《营造法式》的技术源流及其与江南建筑的关联探析, 107. 55 Zhang Shiqing, “Cong goujian siwei kan gudai jianzhu jiegou de leixing yu yanhua” 从建构思维看古代建筑结构的类型与演化, 168. 56 Fu Xinian, Zhongguo gudai chengshi guihua, jianzhu buju ji jianzhu sheji fangfa 中国古代城市规划、建筑群布局及建筑设计方法研究, 5. 57 Wang Qiheng 王其亨, “Qingdai ynagshilei jianzhu tudang zhong de pingge yanjiu —— zhongguo chuantong jianzhu sheji linian yu fangfa de jingdian fanli” 清代样式雷建筑图档中的平格研究 —— 中国传统建筑设计理念与方法的经典范例, 24.

The interpretation of Yingzao-fash is the newest treatise on interpreting the texts and terminology of the Yingzao-fashi. It was written by Pan Guxi who invited He Jianzhong 何建中, another scholar studying Yingzao-fashi for many years, to work with him. This book, published in 2005, presented a detailed explanation of the terms of various construction works in Yingzao-fashi. In particular, in its appendix, some key issues regarding the modular system studied by Chen Mingda were discussed.58 The meticulous study conducted by Liang Sicheng and the succeeding Chinese scholars has arguably made the text and terms of Yingzao-fashi, especially that for timber frameworks, easily understood in modern Chinese. Their work laid a solid foundation for further exploring the more comprehensive technical and cultural meaning of Yingzao- fashi.

From 2000 forward, Zhu Yongchun published a series of papers regarding the major timber works. His research provided scholars with new explanations of some illustrations and timber components in Yingzao- fashi, such as dipan 地盘, tiaowo 挑斡, and angting 昂桯.59 The form and scale of eaves brackets were his main research focuses and were explored in detail. In particular, Zhu Yongchun argued that the diange and tingtang frameworks were expressed by different methods in Yingzao-fashi, based on their distinct technical nature.60 By checking original illustrations of Yingzao-fashi with actual buildings, Pan Guxi offered an interpretation on the content of nonstructural components and decorations, which were omitted in Liang Sicheng’s treatises.61 Li Luke’s PhD dissertation provided a comprehensive study on the polychrome- painting of Yingzao-fashi, which had not received much attention in previous research. The thesis presented 56 colourful graphs to explain the patterns of polychrome-painting in Yingzao-fashi and interpreted more than 100 terms to restore their original meaning.62 Xu Boan and Guo Daiheng presented a new viewpoint in this paper about the stonework of Yingzao-fashi. Challenging Liang Sicheng’s research, they suggested that

58 Pan Guxi and He Jiangzhong, Yingzao-fashi jiedu 《营造法式》解读, 267. 59 Zhu Yongchun, “Yingzao-fashi diange dipan fencaitu xintan” 《营造法式》殿阁地盘分槽图新探, 79; Zhu Yongchun, “Yingzao-fashi zhong tiaowo yu angting jiqi xiangguan gainian bianxi”《营造法式》中“挑斡”与 “昂桯”及其相关概念辨析, 28. 60 Zhu Yongchun, “Guanyu Yingzao-fashi zhong diantan tingtang yu yuwu jige wenti de sibian” 关于《营造法式》中殿堂、厅堂与余屋几个问题的思辨, 82. 61 Pan Guxi, “Yingzao-fashi xiaomuzuo yanjiu” 《营造法式》小木作制度研究, 15. 62 Li Luke 李路珂, “Yingzao-fashi caihua yanjiu” 《营造法式》彩画研究, 1.

Suping 素平 is not a decorative style but a type of carving method.63 Qiao Xunxiang examined construction departments in the Song dynasty and the regulations for material consumption and collection in Yingzao- fashi.64 These studies enormously enrich the understanding of the content other than the major timber work in Yingzao-fashi.

In the current decades, many young Chinese scholars have devoted themselves to study a specific chapter or range of works in Yingzao-fashi. They produced a large number of publications, reflecting a boom of Yingzao-fashi research in China. However, it should be noted that most of these young scholars are graduate students or PhD candidates supervised by the students or assistants of Liang Sicheng and Liu Dunzhen. Such a master-apprentice relationship, on the one hand, formed an influential research community that could push the process of studying Yingzao-fashi. On the other hand, these scholars still followed the research path of their teachers, concentrating on textual interpretation and case studies of actual buildings, a legacy inherited from early academics like Liang Singchen and Liu Dunzhen.

Westerners and Japanese also contributed to the scholarship on Yingzao-fashi all these years. The Danish scholar Else Glahn discussed the characteristics and merits of Chinese timber structure and offered a general introduction of Yingzao-fashi in her article Chinese Building Standards in the 12th published in 1981.65 Guo Qinghua, the professor in Asian architecture and planning at the Melbourne University, devoted herself to studying timber structures and Yingzao-fashi since the 1990s. She presented a more detailed study of this treatise. In the paper, Yingzao-fashi: Twelfth-century Chinese Building Manual, Guo Qinghua examined the source of Yingzao-fashi, listed its main contents, and illuminated the modular system and structural types recorded.66 In 2000, the Japanese scholar Tan Tanaka 田中淡, in his article, offered collation, supplement, translation, and commentary on the sections of the author’s preface, “Kanxiang” and “Zongshi,” of the

63 Xu Bo’an and Gu Daiheng,“Diaobi zhimei qili qianqiu —— Cong Yingzao-fashi sizhong diaoke shoufa kan woguo gudai jianzhu zhuangshi shidiao” 雕壁之美奇丽千秋——从〈营造法式〉四种雕刻手法看我国古代建筑装饰石雕, 127-142.

64 Qiao Xunxiang, “Yingzao-fashi damuzuo liaoli yanjiu”《营造法式》大木作料例研究, 74; Qiao Xunxiang, Songdai jianzhu yingzao jishu jichu yanjiu 宋代建筑营造技术基础研究, 3-16. 65 Else Glahn, “Chinese Building Standards in the 12th Century”, 162-73. 66 Guo, “Yingzao Fashi: Twelfth-Century Chinese Building Manual,” 1-13.

Yingzao-fashi.67 Li Shiqiao, in his article, reviewed the early research and circulation of Yingzao-fashi around the 1930s.68 In 2006, Feng Jiren completed his PhD dissertation in Brown University USA, “The Song-Dynasty Imperial Yingzao-fashi (Building Standards, 1103) and Chinese Architectural Literature: Historical Tradition, Cultural Connotations, Architectural Conceptualization, Chinese Architecture Metaphor and Song Culture in the Yingzao-fashi”.69 Later in 2012, Feng published the book, Chinese Architectural: Metaphor and Song Culture in the Yingzao-fashi. With the analysis of a large body of ancient literature, his study mainly focuses on the source of the terminology used in the Yingzao-fashi. He finally concluded that terms like eaves brackets originated from plant morphology.70

To summarise, modern scholars treat Yingzao-fashi as a vital reference in understanding Chinese construction. Though Yingzao-fashi was introduced early to the West around the 1920s, research on the publication beyond China, especially regarding timber structure types, has been limited over the last three decades. A reason for this deficiency is that Yingzao-fashi has not been translated into a western language, but over the past decade, Chinese academia has enthusiastically embarked on studying the structural system recorded in this treatise. Chinese researchers have devoted much attention to the text and illustrations of Yingzao-fashi and contributed to the interpretation of technical terms and formal features of the structures. Uncovering the technical legitimacy of these structures is the primary goal of these researchers. However, the relationship between timber structures, contemporaneous technology, and Chinese politics and society, has attracted little attention among scholars.

67 Tan Tanaka 田中淡, “Eizo boshiki jijo kansho soshaku buben koho yakuchu (jo)” <營造法式>自序看詳總釋部分校補釋注（上）, 771-813. 68 Shiqiao, “Reconstituting Chinese Building Tradition: The Yingzao Fashi in the Early Twentieth Century,” 470- 89. 69 Feng, “The Song-Dynasty Imperial Yingzaofashi (Building Standards, 1103) and Chinese Architectural Literature,” 1. 70 Feng, Chinese Architecture and Metaphor, 1.

Chapter 3

Official Construction and Yingzao-fashi

3.1 Official construction and non-official construction

There were noticeable distinctions between buildings of official and non-official construction in terms of functions, outward form, and importance, though they shared the same building material of timber. The direct purpose of official construction was to produce architectural works not only for serving the daily life of the royal family and the government officials but also for facilitating the operation of the imperial administrative system and military management. In contrast, non-official construction refers to the construction sponsored and organised by ordinary people, private families, non-governmental organisations or patriarchal clans, which had no direct association with the imperial governments and ruling classes. Non- official construction usually comprised of commoner’s dwellings, gardens, warehouses, clan shrines, private shops, restaurants, inns, and schools, either in cities or villages. Governments at all levels were able to organise intricate construction projects through administrative orders, producing large-scale and impressive buildings, while most commoners constructed their buildings at a limited scale and merely for serving their daily life.

The works of official construction, mostly with timber structures, can be further classified into two categories: royal buildings and government buildings, based on political status. Royal buildings, such as palaces, temples, and mausoleums, were constructed for the royal family, the top rulers, while governments buildings, including offices and official dwellings, were designed to facilitate the operation of governments and to accommodate the officials’ social and family life. The scholarship on extant architectural works of premodern China largely focuses on royal buildings, typically the Taihe Hall of the Forbidden City, Lingen Hall of the Chang Mausoleum, and the main hall of the Shang Huayan Temple.1 Although some monastic

1 Taihe Hall of the Forbidden City, see Sun Dazhang 孙大章, Zhongguo gudai jianzhushi 中国古代建筑史 Vol.5, 41-43. Lingen Hall of the Chang Mausoleum, see Pan Guxi, Zhongguo gudai jianzhushi, Vol.4, 198-199. The main hall of the Shang Huayan Temple, see Guo Daiheng, Zhongguo gudai jianzhushi, Vol.3, 327-335.

buildings located in the Central Plain of China can date back to 800 CE, most of these structures were built between the fifteenth and nineteenth-century CE (during the Ming and Qing dynasties). Royal buildings, as mentioned in the previous chapter, have been widely studied by modern scholars (e.g. Liang Sicheng and Liu Dunzhen) since the 1930s. However, government buildings have been rarely mentioned in modern research on Chinese architecture, because today, few structures of government construction survive in China.

Different from the works of official construction, the timber buildings of non-official construction can be classified into two types based on their location rather than political status, as all commoners have the same political status. The first type of non-official buildings refers to the buildings of commoners who lived in the premodern Chinese cities. Since local governments were only responsible for the construction of civil infrastructures as well as officials’ offices and dwellings, the city commoners had to employ artisans to build their residences and commercial buildings (if they ran a business in the city). The second type of non-official building consists of the structures of village commoners who were organised by patriarchy in clans. Scholars usually define these timber structures in villages as Chinese vernacular or folk architecture.2

In Chinese architectural discourse, vernacular architecture (民居) was usually selected by scholars as a concept opposite to official construction (官式建筑), but this juxtaposition is inappropriate. Vernacular architecture in Western architectural theory was frequently described as the architectural style that is designed based on local needs, availability of local construction materials and reflecting local traditions. Following this definition, the so-called “Chinese vernacular architecture” is more a style based on the formal features of regional construction rooted in its historical and cultural context rather than reflecting the political symbolism of the construction. Vernacular architecture in China often refers to structures well preserved in local traditional style and located in rural areas, especially remote regions where the minorities of China settled. In contrast, official construction is more defined by the political status of construction.

In premodern China, the construction of vernacular architecture in villages was usually independent of governmental management. Despite the powerful force of control from the imperial court, its executive branches could only be delegated to the level of counties, and villages were generally not under the direct

2 Folk architecture in the Western architectural discourse refers to the living environment people have created for themselves. It defines local architecture as formed in the process of anonymous design which later becomes traditional under the influence of various factors.

governance of the central authority. In traditional Chinese communities, where residents observed the principles of the patriarchal clan system, affairs were managed by the patriarch and local gentry rather than imperial government officials. 3 Construction in villages, such as houses and ancestral temples, was sponsored by individual families or clans and constructed by members of the clans collectively, without any funding and support from the government. The form and feature of village buildings in large measure were determined by the skills of local builders and their construction tradition.

Similar to royal buildings, modern scholars also paid much attention to villagers’ structures in some rural areas, the so-called ‘vernacular architecture’. Today most urban areas in China have been occupied by modern construction of steel and concrete, but in some rural areas, structures built with traditional style are still easy to find. In some of the villages of South China where minorities have settled, the original form and layout of massive timber structures are still preserved well and continue to serve the social and family life of local residents. These vivid architectural works offer valuable cases for architectural and cultural scholars to explore the evolution of domestic habitation. During the last two decades, buildings of village commoners have also attracted considerable interest from scholars both in China and beyond. As noted in Chapter 2, Ronald G. Knapp has been researching Chinese vernacular architecture against the cultural and historical geography of China’s countryside since 1965. Also, the Dong architecture created by the ethnic Dong 侗, a minority of south China, has also been studied in this case by Xing Ruan from the perspective of cultural anthropology.4

The royal buildings and village commoners’ buildings form the modern image of traditional Chinese architecture worldwide. However, it is noteworthy that government buildings and city commoners’ buildings are primarily overlooked in modern scholarship on Chinese architecture. This is because the vast majority of these structures has disappeared over the long Chinese history, but that does not mean government buildings and general timber structures in premodern cities of China structures are insignificant. The construction of these buildings can be examined from the historical literature. In fact, there were several levels of governments in imperial China, and each level produced a number of timber buildings to

3 The term “gentry” originated from Britain. In the Chinese context, it refers to the elite who held privileged status through passing the imperial exams. These literati, or scholar-officials, are loosely known in English as “the Chinese gentry”. They are the de facto managers of the local clan in premodern China, especially from the Song dynasty forward. See Twitchett and Brian, The Cambridge Encyclopedia of China, 200. Their relationship to the official timber structure is discussed in Chapter 6 and 7. 4 Ruan, Allegorical Architecture, 2.

accommodate urban life. The imperial administration extended to China’s geographical limits and was applied by authorities at all levels. Regional governments in premodern China were the executive branches commanded by the central government and commonly included two or three levels. For instance, the provincial administrative division of the Song dynasty consisted of three levels: Lu 路 (province), Zhou 州 (city), and Xian 县 (county).5 The entire Song Empire geographically comprised several provinces with each province containing several towns. Each town, in turn, managed several counties. For instance, in 1085 CE, there were 23 provinces, 242 cities and 1235 counties in the Song Empire.6 These regional governments were responsible for the construction dedicated to local administrative management and bureaucracy.

Official construction, both royal construction and government construction, represents the most significant achievements of Chinese architecture. The construction process of official buildings required substantial human resources and material resources that no other bodies were able to offer except governments. There are specific government sectors or organisations in charge of official construction, following the established rules. Financial support from governments enabled official construction to develop unique stylistic elements of design, intentionally incorporated for political purposes, which extended well beyond a building’s utilitarian requirements. Thus works of official construction can be assumed to be the elite or polite architecture of China, in contrast to non-official buildings that are characterised by their reliance on needs, local construction materials and traditions specific to its particular locality.

The history of official construction is as long as that of the Chinese dynasties. By the end of the last dynasty, the Qing, the rulers of the previous dynasties had created innumerable construction miracles ranging from the Great Wall, White Horse Temple, and Mogao Caves to the Summer Palace and Forbidden City. It is difficult to track the earliest work of official construction, but it is clear that the earliest dynasties of China were created within cities and towns. Therefore, the buildings in these cities and towns, constructed by rulers of the time, would be the earliest works of official construction in China. Palaces early in Chinese history, around the Xia or Shang dynasties (3800 - 3500 BCE), offer details of official construction at that time. Some of the earliest foundations of palace remains have been excavated at Erlitou 二里头, adjacent to the

5 The centralisation of government in premodern China eastablished the administrative system, called Junxianzhi 郡县制 (system of prefectures and counties), to address the local authorities It was created in the Eastern Zhou dynaty and then became the national administrative system in the Qin dynasty after a reform made by Shihuangdi of the Qin. In 756 CE, the Tang dynasty, the level of Jun 郡 was replaced by Zhou 州. 6 Wang Cun 王存, Yuanfeng Jiuyu Zhi 元丰九域志, 473-507,

city of Luoyang. In each palace, the main building was enclosed by a covered arcade, and walls raised on rammed-earth foundations are believed to have been smeared with mud. Albeit with thatched roofs, the main structure of the building was shaped by interlocking timber columns and beams, which suggests the timber structure had been the main structural form of official construction at that time

Despite the long history of official construction, the literature describing the characteristics of official construction is limited. The earliest historical record discovered is the chapter of Kaogong ji 考工记 (Records of Examination of Craftsman) that survives in the last section of the book Zhouli 周礼 (the Rituals of Zhou), a work on bureaucracy and organizational theory. Although the Zhouli is thought to date from Zhou times, Kaogong ji is considered a replacement for a lost section of the original text. The text of Kaogong ji is studied by some Chinese scholars as an official document of the Qi state, one of the main states of the East Zhou dynasty (770 - 256 BCE), for the planning of the city of Wangdu 王都 (Ruler’s Capital).7 It can be regarded as the earliest standards for official construction in a state.

More documents involving official construction were not discovered until the Tang dynasty (618 - 907 CE). Yingshan ling was composed and edited by the court into a formal document during the early Tang dynasty. Unfortunately, all documents containing this law were lost except for fragments in Tang ling 唐令 (Tang Code).8 The Song dynasty adopted most of the clauses of Tang Yingshanling with few changes.9 These construction codes offered strict rules which building form and scale should follow, but there was no information about standards and techniques of official construction.

During premodern Chinese history, ruling classes devoted much attention to official construction and treated it as one of the vital tools for achieving and maintaining their political domination. When Shihuangdi of the

7 There is a dispute about the source of Zhouli. The well-known Chinese historian Guo Moruo 郭沫若 studied it from its linguistic features and suggested that it was writen by officials of the Qin State in the Eastern Zhou dynasty. The scholar Liu Hongtao 刘洪涛 contradicted Guo Moruo’s suggestion by comparing the text of Zhouli to that of other documents in the same time. See Liu Hongtao, “Kaogongji bushi qiguo guanshu”考工记不是齐国官书, 359-365. 8 Wang Pu 王溥, Tang-huiyao 唐会要, Vol.31, Yufushang 與服上, 575. 9 Tianyige bowuguan 天一阁博物馆 and Zhongguo shekeyuan lishi yanjiusuo 中国社科院历史研究所, Tianyige cang mingchaoben tianshengling jiaozheng 天一阁藏明抄本天圣令校证, 661-662.

Qin founded the first centralised empire in 221 BCE, China then entered the age of empire. The sovereigns of the following dynasties developed a construction system, including departments and relevant officials at all levels, to manage official construction. These departments and officials played a significant role in the imperial building construction, but few historical records offered a detailed description of them. Such a lack, to an extent, reflected the Chinese rulers’ limited concern for the construction officials and their skills.

3.2 The construction departments and officials

Throughout premodern China, nearly all dynasties established specific departments in charge of official construction. Officials of construction departments were the managers and organisers who were responsible for official construction activities, while registered artisans were builders led by officials and taking part in construction practices. These practitioners made a considerable contribution to the development of Chinese architecture. From the Zhou to the Han dynasties, the chief executive of official construction was called Sikong 司空 (Manager of Construction and Engineering). According to an explanation from Ma Rong 马融 (79 - 116 CE), a famed editor and scholar of Han dynasty, the responsibility of Sikong was to manage the built environment to facilitate construction of residences.10 Nonetheless, since the Han dynasty, Sikong had become an honorary title of the empire without real power, and its function was undertaken by other officials. Official construction at the time was managed by the bureau called Jiangzuo 将作 (Leading of Construction Work), “whose duty is managing the construction of ancestral temples, the main hall of the emperor, royal palaces, and mausoleum.”11 Specifically, from the Qin to Western Han dynasty (221 BCE - 8 CE), the highest official of the bureau Jiangzuo was called Jiangzuo-shaofu 将作少府 (Junior Governor of Construction Work), which was changed into Jiangzuo-dajiang 将作大匠 (Great Artisan of Construction Work) in the Eastern Han dynasty (25 - 220 CE) and Jiangzuo-jian during the Tang-Song period (618 - 1279 CE). The deputy of the chief executive was entitled Jiangzuo-shaojiang 少匠 (Junior Artisan of Construction Work) or Jiangzuo-shaojian 少监 (Junior Superintendent of Construction Work). Jiangzuo- jian was also the generic name of the Bureau of Central Sectors in charge of official construction in the Tang-Song period.

10 Fan Ye 范晔, Hou Han shu 后汉书, Vol. 34, Baiguan zhi 百官志. 11 Ibid, Vol. 37.

Since the Sui dynasty (581-618 CE), the central government started to establish Gongbu 工部 (engineering departments) to manage imperial building construction, agricultural facilities, hydraulic engineering, transportation, military stores and materials, and other public works. The function of Gongbu was much more extensive than that of the previous independent construction sector Jianzuo, but the Jiangzuo-shaofu or Jiangzuo-jian, as officers of Gongbu, still managed the construction of royal buildings, government offices, and official mansions within imperial capitals. In the Ming and Qing dynasties (1368 - 1912 CE) the bureau of Jiangzuo-jian was closed, and Yingshan-si 营缮司 (Bureau of Construction and Repair) was set up as a subsidiary institution of Gongbu to manage the official construction. The Emperor Kangxi (1654 - 1722 CE) of the Qing dynasty created Nei-gongbu 内工部 (Royal Engineering Department) whose function was constructing temporary imperial palaces and independent large-scale royal gardens. These departments and officials took charge of a wide range of construction affairs including making construction regulations, planning and design, recruiting artisans, purchasing and collecting construction materials, and generally managing the construction process.

The imperial departments and officials fostered official construction, aiming to service imperial politics and governance. Nevertheless, how official construction achieved this goal requires more research. The political functions of official construction can be explored by investigating the construction process of significant official buildings and the experience of the typical imperial officials who took responsibility for official construction. After the death of Shihuangdi of the Qin in 210 BCE, the Qin empire soon fell to a Chu general, Xiang Yu 项羽, who was proclaimed Hegemon-King of Western Chu (西楚霸王). He was succeeded by Liu Bang 刘邦, another powerful general who later defeated Xiang Yu. When Liu Bang unified China in 202 BCE and established one of the most powerful dynasties of premodern China, the Han Empire, Xiao He 萧何 was appointed to lead the construction of a new palace for the first imperial emperor. As an extension and renovation of Zhang-tai 章台 (beautiful platform), the palace of the preceding Qin Empire, the new palace was named Weiyang-gong 未央宫 (endless palace) and built with majestic structures on a vast scale. Xiao He invited Liu Bang to visit the palace when the construction was completed in 199 BCE. The emperor, unexpectedly, was astounded by the grandeur of the buildings not with delight but with anger. He criticised the exceptional luxury of the new palace with the comments: “ Society has not been stable, and the people have suffered years of toil and misfortune. Whether our cause can succeed remains to

be unknown. Why do you build such a luxurious palace for me?”12 To respond to the emperor’s criticism, Xiao He presented the famous statement below to convince the emperor who finally accepted the new palace with grace.

The emperor should regard the whole world as his property. There are no other ways to express the emperor’s authority except making his palace magnificent and ensuring that his successors cannot exceed such glory.13

Scholars of Chinese architecture and history frequently cite this statement to illustrate the political intention underlying imperial palaces: to assert the political authority of rulers through the magnificence of their palaces. However, a significant fact that may be overlooked in this allusion is the status of the official, Xiao He. During the process of unifying China that Liu Bang undertook, Xiao He was acting as the chief executive responsible for military logistics and the economic development of the areas occupied. The emperor in a banquet to celebrate his enthronement claimed that three major ministers assisted him in building the Han Empire: Xiao He, Han Xin 韩信, and Zhang Liang 张良. In contrast to Xiao He, Han Xin was the Chief General leading troops, and Zhang Liang was the Chief Councillor providing strategic advice. They seemingly made greater contributions to the establishment of the empire. However, Xiao He was eventually assessed as having the highest rank among all ministers and nominated as the first prime minister of the central government.14

Although Xiao He was appointed as the pivotal figure of the imperial government to lead the construction of the most significant palace of the newborn empire, there is no evidence suggesting that Xiao ever gained professional knowledge about construction methods before the appointment. It seems that a professional background and expertise were not significant factors for rulers to consider when appointing people to lead palace construction. Xiao was deemed as the best official for this position because he was the person who

12 Ban Gu 班固, Han shu 汉书, Gaozu benji 高祖本纪, “天下匈匈(扰攘不安), 劳苦数岁, 成败未可知, 是何治宫室过度也.” 13 Ibid, “天子以四海为家, 非令壮丽, 亡以重威; 且亡令後世有以加.” 14 Sima qian 司马迁, Shiji 史记, Vol.54, Xiaoxianguo shijia 萧相国世家, “上曰: ‘吾闻进贤受上赏.萧何功虽高，得鄂君乃益明.’ 于是因鄂君故所食关内侯邑封为安平侯. 是日, 悉封何父子兄弟十余人, 皆有食邑. 乃益封何二千户, 以帝尝繇咸阳时何送我独赢奉钱二也.”

understood the political requirements of the imperial palace. First, as his statement indicated, he had a clear mind that the imperial palace should symbolise the authority of the emperor and his reign. Secondly, being the prime minister of the government, he needed to ponder how to perform construction operations for the administration of the dynasty appropriately.

In fact, it is common in Chinese history that the paramount official of imperial governments acted as the leader of significant construction projects or the planner of the imperial cities and palaces. Gongsun Yang 公孙鞅 (395 - 338 BCE), also known as Shang Yang 商鞅, a representative personage of Chinese Legalism, embarked on political reform in Qin state from 356 BCE that promoted the state’s strength rapidly and laid an institutional foundation for the emperor Qin Shihuang to unify the whole of China. To implement his reform, Xiao King of Qin (秦孝公 381-338 BCE) appointed Gongsun Yang to be the Daliangzao 大良造 (the chief executive of the government), and in 351 BCE, Gongsun Yang launched the construction of the new capital of Qin State, Xian Yang 咸阳. Wu Zixu 伍子胥 (559 - 484 BCE) was the Primary Minister of the Wu kingdom, who helped the King of Wu become one of the Five Hegemons in the Spring and Autumn period (722 - 481 BCE). In 514 BCE, Wu Zixu received orders from his lord, the King of Wu, to construct the new capital of Gu Su (姑苏).15 Today it is the city of Suzhou, one of the most famous historic cities of China. The primary planner, also manager, of the construction of the famous Epang Palace was Li Si 李斯 (284 - 208 BCE), the most important minister of Shihuangdi of the Qin. The important ministers on the throne, like Gao Jiong 高颎 (541 - 607 CE) and Yang Su 杨素 (544 - 606 CE), also led the construction of the capital and palaces of the Sui dynasty (inherited by the following Tang dynasty). The capital city of the Yuan dynasty, Dadu 大都, was planned by the minister Liu Bingzhong 刘秉忠 (1216 - 1274 CE), who was one of the main administrators of the central government. Liu ji 刘基 (1311 - 1375 CE), a statesman who helped to lay the foundation of the Ming monarchy, was sent by the Emperor Hongwu, the founding emperor of Ming, to search for a suitable site for the royal palace to be built. It is clear that Chinese rulers believed that political intentions, as the critical driving-force for official construction, could be understood and fulfilled by these high-ranking imperial officials.

15 Zhao Ye 赵晔, Wuyue Chunqiu 吴越春秋, “子胥乃使相土尝水, 象天法地, 造筑大城, 周回四十七里. 陆八门, 以象天八门; 水八门, 以法地八聪.”

However, construction professionals were required to check the actual implementation of official construction. One of the most famous construction officials, renowned for his professional skills, was Yuwen Kai 宇文恺 who designed the capital city, Chang’an 长安, of the Sui and Tang empires. In 582 CE, Emperor Wen of the Sui dynasty identified a new region southeast of the much-ruined Han dynasty city of Chang’an to build his new capital and designated Yuwen Kai as the deputy director of the entire construction project.16 The city initially was called Daxing 大兴 (great prosperity). Daxing was renamed Chang’an in the year 618 CE when the Duke of Tang, Li Yuan 李渊, proclaimed himself the Emperor Gaozu of Tang. Chang’an during the Tang dynasty (618 – 907 CE) was, along with Constantinople and Baghdad, one of the largest cities in the world. As the main planner and designer, Yuwen Kai presented the location and layout of the city and the interior royal palace, the partition of urban areas, traffic organisation, and the construction details of buildings. The entire city and building construction ran under his guidance, and Yuwen Kai was eulogized due to his enormous contribution to the construction of the great city.

The city layout was designed by Yuwen Kai to express the authority of the emperor and central government and to facilitate civil management. The new city was laid out on a north-south axis in a grid pattern, dividing the enclosure into 108 wards. The royal palace was located in the north-central city and divided into two parts, Huangcheng 皇城 (Court City) and Gongcheng 宫城 (Palace City).17 Huangcheng was the place where officials of the central government worked, while Gongcheng was built for accommodating the day- to-day living of the royal family. The city featured two large marketplaces, in the east and west respectively. People who lived in the wards were not allowed to go outside after the night curfew. Higher-ranking officials had the privilege of living closer to the central avenue.

Most technical issues connected with city planning and building construction were solved by the deputy director Yuwen Kai and other construction officials. Nevertheless, Yuwen Kai was not the paramount leader of the outstanding construction project. The leading director of the city construction appointed by the emperor was the imperial prime minister Gao Jiong, whose duty was to establish both the principles of the city plan and the rules of building construction.18 However, there is no historical text to suggest that Gao

16 Wei Zheng 魏征, Suishu 隋书, Yuwenkai liezhuan 宇文恺列传, “上以恺有巧思,诏领营新都副监.” 17 Fu Xinian, Zhongguo gudai jianzhushi 中国古代建筑史, 316-318. 18 Wei Zheng, Suishu 隋书, Yuwenkai liezhuan 宇文恺列传, “高颎虽总大纲,凡所规划,皆处于恺.”

ever engaged in any construction projects or had experience in city planning. Even Yuwen Kai was not purely a technical official, since, for most of his life, he was acting as an administrative official of the empire. Yuwen Kai stemmed from an eminent lineage, an aristocratic military family, and his father was one of the most powerful ministers of the Northern Zhou dynasty (557 - 581 CE). Yuwen Kai was given a peerage due to the great military achievements of his father when Yuwen Kai was only three years old.19 His two brothers were all interested in battle skills, but Yuwen Kai was unusual in preferring to study literature and construction techniques. His innovative ideas and creative thinking about construction were seemingly an innate talent, as there is no record saying that he received education in construction skills. In fact, during premodern China, there was no professional training, let alone education, in building construction provided. In 580 CE, Yang Jian 杨坚, the prime minister of Northern Zhou (who later would become the founding emperor of the succeeding Sui dynasty), appointed Yuwen Kai as the only advanced official of the empire to manage urban and palatial construction. 20 However, before that, Yuwen Kai had gained years of experience as a general administrator of the central governments and fully understood how the imperial administrative system operated.

Yuwen Kai in 584 CE, while finishing the building of Daxing city, started another significant construction project, that of Guangtong Canal (广通渠), an artificial waterway constructed to allow freight transport from the capital to other places. After that, he left the central government with a promotion to be the regional chief executive of Lai Zhou 莱州, a wholly administrative post.21 Yang Jian subsequently established the Sui dynasty in the role of the founding emperor in 593 CE He designated the contemporary prime minister Yang Su as the main director to construct the new palace Renshou-gong 仁寿宫. Yuwen Kai again assumed the duty of the deputy director, owing to Yang Su’s recommendation. To express the power of the emperor, Yuwen Kai made the palace exceptionally magnificent, which greatly delighted the emperor. When Yang Jian’s son Yang Guang 杨广, an emperor in Chinese history famous for wallowing in luxury, succeeded to the throne, the new emperor started to construct another capital city, East Capital Luo Yang 洛阳. Yuwen Kai once again was sent to lead the construction as the deputy director. The splendid city Yuwen Kain

19 Ibid, “年三岁, 赐爵双泉伯.” 20 Ibid, “ 既而上建仁寿宫, 访可任者, 右仆射杨素言恺有巧思, 上然之, 于是检校将作大匠.” 21 Ibid, “后拜莱州刺史.”

presented also made Yang Guang very happy, and then Yuwen Kai was promoted to be the primary minister of the Engineering Department (Gongbu 工部) of the empire, the highest post he reached during his life.22

Yuwen Kai was one of the most well-known leaders of official construction in premodern Chinese history. The cities and palaces he designed and constructed were all reused by the later Tang dynasty and became symbols of the Tang empire, one of the most powerful dynasties of premodern China. These construction works are all masterpieces servicing the political and social life of imperial rulers and their subjects. Unfortunately, no documents record the design and technical details, and Yuwen Kai also did not contribute to any writings about his experiences and knowledge regarding construction techniques.

From studying the history of official construction and Yuwen Kai’s career, it can be concluded that Chinese rulers greatly valued official construction, but they placed less importance on the professionals and their expertise in building. In traditional Chinese theory, technique was not admired as it is not of benefit to one’s morality.23 As a result, authoritative historiography rarely documented the deeds of craftsmen.24 From the viewpoint of rulers, how to build cities and their structures was not important as long as their political functions were realised: creating a sense of imperial majesty, and ensuring the smooth operation of the imperial administration. Chinese rulers’ attitude towards official construction led to artisans building a substantial number of impressive timber edifices under the management of the imperial departments and guidance of construction officials. During premodern China, there was no such title “architect”, and this role was never needed in building construction.

3.3 Yingzao-fashi and Li Jie

Yingzao-fashi embodies the most significant achievements of official construction in imperial China. With an explanation of the issues in a preface, the 34 volumes in the main body consist of five parts: General

22 Ibid, “帝大悦之, 进位开府, 拜工部尚书.” 23 A well-known Chinese idiom is qiji yinqiao 奇技淫巧 (clever contrivance and novel techniques). The Confucian classic Shangshu 尚书 criticises the emperor of the Shang dynasty who enjoyed novel but contrived techniques and regarded such preferences as symptomatic of an extravagant life. See Shangshu,Taishi 泰誓, “作奇技淫巧.” 24 Zhongguo kexueyuan zirankexue shi yanjiusuo 中国科学院自然科学史研究所, Zhongguo gudai jianzhu jishu shi 中国古代建筑技术史, 525.

Glossary; Regulations; Labour; Materials; and Illustrations. The first part, in Volume 1 and 2, gives a full explanation in a glossary of 48 building techniques and general building information on construction, such as foundations, pillars, beams, roofs, site topography and orientation. By tracing the origin of the main terms mentioned in this part of Yingzao-fashi, Li Jie quoted many ancient documents, discussed the meanings of earlier technical terms, and described the practices of his time. The second part of Yingzao-fashi, Regulations (from Volume 3 - 5), specifies contemporary construction principles, techniques, details and the size of building components in different construction systems. As noted in Chapter 2, the information of Regulations was presented in the form of 13 systems.

Volumes 26-28 in Labour, stipulate the standard estimates for the workforce and working time regarding each building system when executing the given construction projects. Volumes 26 - 28 also specify the standard quantities of building materials for specific construction tasks and list the types of decorative painting and coatings. The final five volumes of Yingzao-fashi are illustrations that depict practical details of carpentry and joinery, such as the joints of elements, forms of structures, and patterns of decoration.

To standardise construction and make the regulations practical, the illustrations of Yingzao-fashi listed typical patterns of structures and building components, which made it a technical reference also. Scholars primarily study the parts, Regulations and Illustrations, that refer to the construction and architectural subjects. The text of Regulations, for example, prescribes the standard processes of construction, the manufacturing features of building components, and the principles of component selection. Many architectural details are covered in the discourse on standard construction, from different kinds of tie beams and braces to many components of bracketing, window lattices and individual elements of railing and ceilings to miniature structures inside a hall. Even technical details like water troughs under eaves, aprons, and construction scaffolds are discussed in the Regulations, as well as seemingly trivial components as curtain rods and tree-protecting railings. Furthermore, the section of Yingzao-fashi known as ‘Illustrations’ is devoted to line drawings, illustrating fundamental construction technologies and tools, major architectural components, structural forms, and decorative arts including carving, column and tile decorations, and colour-painting motifs. These exquisite illustrations reflected a high level of cartographic skill and offered the original forms on which contemporary construction elements are often based.

Another important feature of Chinese architecture that Yingzao-fashi presented is caifen 材份, a modular system for all dimensional measurements in structural carpentry, which controlled the proportion of the

overall building and its major components [Figure3.1]. Li Jie in the text stresses that “for all the rules of house building, Cai is the basis.” Cai consists of single cai (单材) and full cai (足材). Single cai refers to a combinational dimension of fifteen units length and ten units width for the rectangular cross-section of an eaves bracket component, huagong 华拱.Each unit in Yingzao-fashi was named Fen. Full cai in comparison was twenty-one fen in length and ten fen in width. The gap between single and full cai was named zhi 栔 that is six Fen length and four Fen width. All dimensions in the carpentry of the structure had to be related to the basic cai unit, thus controlling overall dimensions and proportion of the structure.

zhi

Cai

Full Single Single

Figure 3.1 Caifen modular system, after Guo, Qinghua. “Yingzao Fashi: Twelfth-Century Chinese Building Manual,” 7.

There were eight grades for the Cai applying to buildings representing different social classes of occupants. The modularity of Caifen enabled the use of similar structural patterns in all eight grades, allowing many variations from very small to very large. The selection of grade determined the size of the structural components. The degree of standardisation led to a typology of framework patterns and the specification of construction methods, so as to arrive at budget estimates. Once the module and the type of timber framework were known, an approximate evaluation of labour and material consumption could readily be made. Thus, when a low-grade cai is selected, the entire structure is correspondingly small. Conversely, if a high grade was applied, the whole building was large. Based on the text of Yingzao-fashi, the basic units of the first and second grade were used for important palaces or temple halls, which were normally of large scale, while the basic units from the third to seventh grade were for officer mansions or ordinary public buildings that were smaller than palaces and temple halls.

It took decades to compile Yingzao-fashi. In 1072, officials of the imperial bureau managing official construction, Jiangzuo-jian, following the order of the emperor Shenzong 神宗 (1048 – 1085 CE), started

to draft a collection of standards for official construction, in order to prevent serious corruption and waste in the construction process. The first compilation ended in 1091, but the near twenty-year compilation did not lead to the first edition of Yingzao-fashi of high quality. When it was issued the following year for guiding the practices of official construction, builders found the standards unusable. Thus in 1093 CE, the succeeded emperor Zhezong 哲宗 (1077 - 1100 CE) asked the bureau to recheck and examine the initial Yingzao-fashi. Li jie participated in this task as an executor.

Though this work was finished in 1096 CE, one year later, the court decided to rewrite Yingzao-fashi to make it perfect. The rewriting work was led by Li Jie, but at this time Li was just a middle-ranking official of the bureau, Jiangzuo-jiancheng 将作监丞 (Inspectorate of Jiangzuo-jian). There are no historical records for the contemporary chief of Jiangzuo-jian who would have assumed the primary responsibility for the rewriting. Probably the chief officer did not have much construction expertise and was just a leader in charge of administrative management, because four years later, Li Jie, rather than the chief official, presented the final edition of Yingzao-fashi to the court in 1102 CE. In the preface of the standard book, Li Jie mentioned the great effort involved in examining the previous historical documents and summarising artisans’ craftsmanship during the compilation of the new edition.25

After being issued nationwide in 1103 CE, Yingzao-fashi was applied as an authoritative reference in official construction practice for at least twenty years until the Northern Song was overturned by the Jurchen in 1127 CE. Historical records show that some local officials indeed referred to the Yingzao-fashi standards in construction managed by governments. The construction projects in the imperial palace and the capital city Bianliang 汴梁 administered by Jiangzuo-jian, including those supervised by Li Jie himself, were carried out in line with the standards set in Yingzao-fashi. Along with the demise of the Northern Song, Yingzao- fashi, however, was lost for some time. When the Southern Song (1127 - 1279 CE) court promoted a nationwide search for books of the previous emperors of the Song, a copy was found. Based on this copy, the Southern Song government republished Yingzao-fashi at least twice, in 1145 and the Shaoding period (1228 - 1233 CE). Unfortunately, none of these three Song editions has survived, except for fragments of a repaired Shaoding edition that were found in the storehouse of the imperial Qing (1644 - 1911 CE) in the twentieth century. Yet the complete text has been transmitted to us through handwritten copies from the late imperial period. Indeed, Yingzao-fashi established itself as an authoritative reference not only for

25 Li Jie, Yingzao-fashi, preface, “臣考究经史群书,并勒人匠逐一讲说.”

contemporary construction practices but also for later-period scholars who wrote about Chinese architectural tradition. The treatise was included in later imperial compilations, Yongle-dadian 永乐大典 (Great encyclopedia of the Yongle period) of the Ming dynasty and Siku-quanshu 四库全书(Complete library in the four branches of literature) of the Qing dynasty.

The final edition of Yingzao-fashi was credited to its compiler Li Jie. The inscription on his tomb tablet, written by the scholar Cheng Ju 程俱 (1078 - 1144 CE) on behalf of a subordinate official under Li Jie, offers an introduction to the great construction official. 26 Similar to Yuwen Kai, Li Jie was also born in a family that was a typical representative of the official lineage of imperial China. However, different from Yuwen Kai’s family, Li Jie’s great-grandfather, grandfather, and father were all civil officials of middle rank. His father, Li Nangong 李南公, as well as most civil officials in the Song dynasty, obtained his first post by passing the imperial civil service examination when he was 23 years old. Li Jie however, did not follow this route. He started his career in 1085 when the emperor Shenzong died, and his son succeeded to the throne as Emperor Zhezong 哲宗 (1077 - 1100 CE). The new succession provided his father, Li Nangong, with an opportunity to donate money to the court. Due to this donation, Li Jie was posted as a junior official managing sacred ceremonies, one of the lowest ranking officials of the empire. After that, Li Jie held a low- ranking governing position connected with defence in a small county. Then in 1092 CE, he entered the bureau of Jiangzuo-jian, acting as the lowest-ranking official, Zhubu 主簿 (registrar), of the bureau.27

When Li Jie received a court order to rewrite Yingzao-fashi in 1097 CE, he had been working in Jiangzuo- jian for eight years. We do not know if he had an interest in construction matters before becoming an official of Jiangzuo-jian. However, during his eight years serving Jiangzuo-jian, he participated in many construction projects and developed his professional skills and knowledge. As described in Li’s tomb tablet, when he commenced the rewriting of Yingzao-fashi, “The rules for examining a structure as being stable or not, the methods of constructing buildings, and the application of a carpenter’s weight strings and ink marks, had all been understood clearly by him.”28 During the process of compiling Jiangzuo-jian, he completed the construction of Wuwang-fu 五王府 (Fifth King Mansion) in 1098 CE. These construction practices polished

26 Li Jie’s epitaph was attached in the appendix of Yingzao-fashi. See ibid, appendix. 27 Ibid, “元祐七年以承奉郎为将作监主簿.” 28 ibid, preface, “坚穹之制、堂构之方, 与绳墨之运, 皆已了然于心.”

the technical knowledge that would have helped him to compile the standards. As he mentioned in the preface of Yingzao-fashi, “It would be impossible to establish the new rules of construction without superb knowledge acquired from many large-scale construction operations.”29 After finishing the compilation of Yingzao-fashi, in 1104 CE, he was formally appointed as the chief official of the bureau Jiangzuo-jian.

From 1104 to 1108 CE, Li Jie led a series of significant construction works in the capital, including Biyong 辟雍 (Imperial University); Shangshu-sheng 尚书省 (The Department of State Affairs); Longge-gong 龙德宫 (Dragon Virtue Palace); and Zhuque-meng 朱雀门 (Crimson Rosefinch Gate); Jinglong-meng 景龙门 (Brilliant Dragon Gate); Jiucheng-dian 九成殿 (Nine Layer Hall); and Kaifeng-fuxie 开封府廨 (The administrative office of the capital government); Tai-miao 太庙 (Imperial Ancestral Temple); and Ciqin- taihou-fosi 慈钦太后佛寺 (Temple of the Ciqin Empress Dowager).30 Finally, as a result of his great achievements in official construction, Li Jie in 1109 was promoted to be a local administrative official, the governor of Guo Zhou 虢州, where he died at the position in 1110 CE.

Li Jie was also a typical scholar-official of the Song dynasty who was proficient in literary and artistic creation, albeit not starting his career by passing the imperial civil service examination.31 He was a book collector, and a prolific writer as well as a talented calligrapher and painter. Li produced books on diverse subjects, including geography, historical personages, palaeography, musical instruments, horses, and board games. Notably, he studied some of the most influential classical works, including Shanhaijing 山海经 (Classic of Mountains and Seas), compiled between the fourth and first centuries BCE, and Shuowen-jiezi 说文解字 (Explanations of Words) from the second century CE.32 As a scholar oriented toward these classics, he painstakingly searched for the legitimacy of construction terminology in the historical tradition when he was writing Yingzao-fashi. In spite of the imperial order to produce a practical treatise, he undertook a literature review of architectural tradition on fundamental principles, technologies, and terminology. By tracing contemporary building methods back to precedents in the classic and earlier authoritative texts, he claimed the legitimacy of the construction standards he was presenting to the court and readers in society.

29 Ibid, “非有治三宫之精识, 岂能新一代之陈规.” 30 Ibid, appendix. 31 Ibid, “遣诫奉表致方物补恩郊社斋郎.” 32 Ibid, “有续山海经十卷, 古篆说文十卷.”

Li Jie, as a construction official was famed for his contribution to Yingzao-fashi, and his political career reflects the attitude of Chinese rulers and society towards construction officials with expertise. Reviewing his entire political career, we perceive that he had never been a high ranking official at the centre of imperial power. Though he was born into an upper-class family, distinct from Yuwen Kai, his father was merely an imperial middle-ranking official who was not able to support him with sufficient political resources. Before entering Jiangzuo-jian, he had to work in several insignificant administrative posts and never gained any experience in construction and building techniques. We do not know why he moved to Jiangzuo-jian, but compared to administrative agencies, Jiangzuo-jian probably was not a good place for most imperial officials. Even though he had become the chief of the bureau, the rank of his post, Lower Fourth Grade (Congsipin 从四品), was still not high within the imperial bureaucratic hierarchy. His final promotion, from a construction official of the central government to a general administrative post of the regional government, seems to be a reward for his seventeen-year service to royal and capital construction, particularly the production of Yingzao-fashi. It is apparent that the imperial rulers placed more value on the administrative capacity of officials, compared to their professional skills.

Despite the great contribution Li Jie made to Yingzao-fashi, there are several other reasons for the emergence of Yingzao-fashi in the Song dynasty. Such a complete record of building details and construction techniques, with rich illustrations, is unprecedented in the history of imperial China. Even though previous dynasties built many more magnificent palaces than those of the Song dynasty, like the Weiyang Palace of Han and Daming Palace of Tang, there were no construction documents analogous to Yingzao-fashi. Thus, it is interesting to ask why this seminal work was formulated in the Song dynasty rather than other times.

3.4 Song utilitarianism and political reform

Yingzao-fashi was a product of Song political reforms. During the eleventh century, there were a set of political reforms initiated to enhance the national strength of the Song Empire. The construction department Jiangzuo-jian responsible for compiling the construction code was re-established as a policy of the Yuanfeng Reform, and there is a correspondence between the compilation of the code and the progress of Xining Reform initiated by Wang Anshi 王安石, one of the most famous reformers in premodern Chinese history. The underlying philosophy of the reform was Song utilitarianism, which had attracted limited attention from modern scholars, compared to the concurrent viewpoints of Lixue 理学 and its thinking about rational idealism. To seek the origin of Yingzao-fashi, this section examines the nature of Song social and political 64

conditions and explores the historical context of philosophic thought and political movements through the eleventh century, instead of examining the source and dissemination of construction techniques.

The Song marked a high point in Chinese intellectual and cultural history.33 “Neo-Confucianism” took form and remained the dominant philosophical trend through late imperial history. Neo-Confucianism usually designates a new formulation of Confucian ethics and metaphysics called Lixue. The followers of Lixue advocated restraining man’s desires and believed that their new formulation of Confucian principles had significance for the entire life of man in society and that everything else would fall into place when those principles were firmly established.

However, there also were other mighty spurs to thought in the eleventh century, coming from the new scholarly elite’s awareness of political and social issues and perils to the state arising from the invasion threat of the northern nomads. The scholar-official of the early Song, Ouyang Xiu 欧阳修 (1007 - 1072 CE), represented men who searched for a different way to regenerate Confucian thought. Ouyang stated, “Xing is not the urgent issue for scholars, and is something that the Sage seldom discussed.” He also believed that the content of the Confucian classics Liujing 六经 (Six classics) was entirely about aspects of human affairs that are relevant to the times.34

Ouyang Xiu, with such a pragmatic attitude, also considered construction affairs as a real matter. Mujing 木经 (Timberwork Manual) was an unofficial building manual that affected the construction of the early Northern Song significantly. It was attributed to Yu Hao 喻浩 (965 – 986 CE) who was said to be a highly- skilled designer of construction projects, known as Duliaojiang 都料匠 (Artisan of Material Management), although he was not an official. Yu Hao at the outset performed his skills in the Wuyue areas of southern

33 Chaffee and Twitchett, eds. The Cambridge History of China: Volume 5, 19. 34 The tradition of a defined group of “classics” in Chinese culture dates at least to the Warring States period, when the Zhuangzi has Confucius telling Laozi “I have studied the six classics—the Odes (Shi 诗), the Documents (Shu 书), the Rites (Li 礼), the Music (Yue 乐), the Changes (Yi 易), and the Spring and Autumn Annals (Chunqiu 春秋)”. These six works were thus already considered classics by at least the 3rd century BC, although the Classic of Music did not survive the chaos of the Qin unification of China and was deemed lost during the Han dynasty. The remaining Five Classics were traditionally considered to have been edited by Confucius. See Nylan, The Five “Confucian” Classics, I. See Xiao Gongquan 萧公权, Zhongguo zhengzhi sixiang shi 中国政治思想史, 413.

China that were well-known as a place producing many skilful construction artisans. Later, he moved to the capital city of Song, Bianliang, and provided service for the construction of that town. Ouyang Xiu, in his article Guitianlu 归田录 (Record of Returning to Fields), offered comments on Yu Hao’s skills and Mujing:

Since the foundation of the Song, Yu Hao has simply been the only figure among builders. To this day, all builders follow the methods created by the Duliaojiang of Yu. The three-volume Mujing is still used around the empire.35

Ouyang represented the scholar-official who analysed the nature of social issues and who also engaged in practical matters like construction, although the trend of paying attention to real problems in Song political thought has been labelled utilitarianism.

Song utilitarianism came to the fore with the reform of Fan Zhongyan 范仲淹 (989 - 1052 CE) of the mid- eleventh century and reached a high point under the broader reform of Wang Anshi (989 - 1052 CE). Fan Zhongyan led the first reform and offered forceful political advice in what became known as Qinli Reform, named for the period of Qingli reign (1041 - 1048 CE). There were three main objectives behind the Fan Zhongyan reforms:

1) To improve administrative efficiency in the central government by changing personnel management in ways that would reward good officials and weed out incompetents;

2) To strengthen local government by improving salaries, investing in the infrastructure of agriculture, and making more equitable the labour requirements imposed on the entire rural population;

3) To create militias and improve defence at the local level to maintain order, particularly in localities on the frontiers that were exposed to the dangers of invasion.

35 Tuo Tuo, Song shi 宋史, Yiwenzhi 艺文志, “国朝以来木工, 一人而已. 至今木工皆以预都料为法. 有《木经》三卷, 今行於世者是也.”

These policies aroused strong opposition at court, and in 1045 CE the Emperor Renzong had to rescind the reform decrees, and the reformers fell from power.

Nevertheless, many real needs in Song society and at government levels remained unmet. Later, a much more ambitious reform was carried out to address basically the same issues, when the new Emperor Shenzong 神宗 succeeded to the throne and sought improvements. Wang Anshi in his year as Chief Councillor (1069 - 1076 CE) launched broad-ranging new policies that had a significant impact on later Song society. From 1069 to 1074 CE, Wang Anshi formulated and promulgated a dozen new policies that were far more thorough than the Qinli Reform noted above. One core group dealt with state finance, money, and trade. Wang Anshi first devised new ways to manage the imperial procurement system. He proposed paying in cash for labour in place of the traditional levies for labour services to supply the needs of local government. He proposed that landholdings be surveyed to adjust the basic agrarian tax rates on which government revenues principally depended. His proposals also extended to increasing the minting of copper coins and to recognising the place of the craft and trade guilds, thus improving the management of imperial trade. Moreover, he established a plan to lend farmers cash when they planted crops, the loans to be repaid at harvest time later the same year. All of those measures were designed to reduce waste, eliminate tax evasion, and improve efficiency.

Both Jiangzuo-jian and Yingzao-fashi were products of this great reform by Wang Anshi. In the early period of the Song, the institution of the central government responsible for the organisation and management of official construction was called Xiuzao-an 修造案 (Construction Bureau). It is one of the five subordinate bureaux of Hubu 户部 (Ministry of Revenue) which formed the imperial top management organ of finance, Sansi 三司 (Three Ministries), together with Yantie 盐铁 (Ministry of Salt and Iron) and Duozhi 度支 (Ministry of Allocation and Supply). The three ministries with their subordinate bureaux were in charge of different fields of imperial finance including revenue, trade, deployment of military supplies, civilian goods distribution, official construction, animal husbandry, allocation of agricultural products, and cargo transportation. In addition to official construction in the capital city, Xiuzao-an also took responsibility for the construction of regional government offices, barracks, and public facilities like bridges. The Department of Engineering Works (工部) of the Department of State Affairs (尚书省) and its subordinate body, Jiangzuo-jian, still remained at that time but without any actual authority. The regional government also had

a specific office, named Xiuzao-si 修造司 (Construction Office), in charge of local official construction projects.

Such an organisational system of official construction led to severe corruption and waste in the construction process of the early Song dynasty. Xiuzao-an essentially was a subsidiary body of the imperial organ of finance, and its function was more focused on the economic aspects of construction, the cost of labour and materials, instead of on professional technical support for official construction. According to documentary records, the design of some construction works was frequently modified during the construction process, which resulted in a huge waste of resources.36 The Xiuzao-an was also not able to inspect and check the quality of the construction works based on the construction techniques. In this case, many construction officials preferred to overestimate the budget of construction projects, and when the projects were finished, they could take credit for the savings and seek rewards from governments by claiming their effective control of construction expenditure.

A reform of the imperial bureaucratic system was also conducted in this period. In 1080 CE when Wang Anshi resigned from the position of Chief Councillor, following Wang’s resign, the emperor Shenzong, as the supreme authority, continued to lead a transformation of the imperial bureaucratic system known as the Yuanfeng Reform. During this change, the previous department managing official construction, Xiuzao-an, was replaced by Jiangzuo-jian, the Department of Engineering Works, restoring the construction institution of the Tang dynasty. According to the historical records, there were ten offices in the Jiangzuo-jian that performed different functions:

Xiunei-si 修内司 (Office of Palace Repair): The office took responsibility for royal construction such as building and repair of palatial buildings and the royal ancestor temple.

Dongxi-bazuo 东西八作 (East and Weest Eight Workshops): There were eight workshops in charge of the construction and repair of civil infrastructure and public facilities in the capital city.

36 Xu Song, Song-huiyao-jigao, Zhiguan sanshi 职官三十, Tiju-xiunei-si 提举修内司, Vol.75, “先是遣使修吴国长公主院, 使人互执所见, 屡有改易, 劳费颇甚.”

Zhumu-wu 竹木务 (Bamboo and Timber Office): The office was in charge of receiving and storing the bamboo and timber material that was collected from other places and used for official construction in the capital city.

Shicai-chang 事材场 (Material Processing Office): The duty of the office was processing raw construction materials and producing prefabricated components of timber structures.

Maijuan-chang 麦场 (Straw Office): The office was in charge of storing the straw that was used to make mortar.

Yaowu 窑务 (Kiln Office): The office was in charge of making bricks, tiles, and potteries used in construction.

Danfen-chang 丹粉场 (Painting Powder Office): The office was in charge of making pigment used for colour painting and rendering of buildings.

Zuofang-wuliaoku 作坊物料库 (Storage of Workshop Material): The place was used to store various construction materials for long-term use.

Tuicai-chang 退材场 (Recycle Office): The rejected timber materials were collected in this office. Some of them would be recycled and reused in construction, while others would be used as firewood.

Lianbo-chang 帘箔场 (Curtain and Screen Office): The office was in charge of making bamboo curtains and reed screens.37

The change of construction institution of the central government, from Xiuzao-an into Jiangzuo-jian, achieved the aims of the reform the Yuanfeng Reform, streamlining organisations and downsizing staff. More importantly, compared to the previous Xiuzao-an, Jiangzuo-jian was attached to the imperial top engineering department, the Department of Engineering Works of the Department of State Affairs. Jiangzuo- jian tended to offer more professional technical support to official construction, and officials in Jiangzuo- jian were expected to gain more professional knowledge and skills. Five years after the reestablishment of Jiangzuo-jian, Li Jie, who made a significant contribution to the compilation of Yingzao-fashi, moved to the institution and started his career as a construction official.38

37 Ma Duanling 马端临, Wenxian tongkao 文献通考, Vol.57, Jiangzuo-jian. 38 Li Jie, Yingzao-fashi, appendix.

Yingzao-fashi was produced during the unrest that accompanied the political reforms. The first compilation of Yingzao-fashi took nearly twenty years, from 1072 to 1091 CE. During this time, Wang Anshi and his reform policies experienced considerable turbulence. The reform policies were in full force when Wang acted as Chief Councillor from 1069 to 1074 CE and then was challenged by his political opponents and was removed from his post. In 1075 CE, the emperor Shen Zong reinstated Wang in his previous position, and he attempted to promote his policies again. One year later, he had to resign due to strong resistance from an opposition faction. After that, his policies were gradually repealed by 1085 CE, the year of the emperor’s death. In this case, less attention from the governments was paid to the compilation of first edition Yingzao- fashi. Although it was basically completed in 1091 CE, Li Jie mentioned in the preface of Yingzao-fashi: “It lacked the details of the strict restrictions on materials and workforce, and there were no detailed regulations to prevent peculation and waste.”39

However, Wang Anshi’s policies were enacted once again when the emperor Zhe Zong, who supported the reforms, took over the reins of government upon his coming of age in 1093 CE. Yingzao-fashi gained importance as a result of the change of political winds and was finally was issued in 1103 CE as imperial construction standards by the successor of Zhe Zong, emperor Hui Zong, who intended to increase royal construction projects and believed building standards and associated laws would benefit construction. In particular, after the issue of Yingzao-fashi, Hui Zong ordered the construction of a large building complex, Mingtang 明堂 (Bright Hall), the only imperial ceremonial building in the Song dynasty. Conceivably, Yingzao-fashi provided a significant reference document for the construction of this building.

In addition to Yingzao-fashi, there was another treatise, gongcheng-zuofa, appearing in the Qing dynasty, the last dynasty of premodern China. It is noteworthy that similar to Yingzao-fashi, gongcheng-zuofa was a result of the political reform led by the emperor Yongzheng 雍正 (1678 - 1735 CE) during his reign. Political reforms were the main impetus for the production of construction standards, often along with a comprehensive summary and re-creation of practical experiences and technical knowledge. The technical achievements underlying the standards presented were finally spread and applied around the whole of China and even East Asia generally.

39 Ibid, preface, “工料太宽, 关防无术”, “徒为空文, 难以行用.”

In premodern China, the political agenda was usually the most prominent driving-force promoting the progress and development of official construction. The ultimate functions of official construction are accommodating the centralised political system of premodern China. Although Chinese rulers understood that official construction played a key role in identifying their political legitimacy, they paid very little attention to construction techniques and the role of professionals. They were concerned with the establishment of their political authority and focused on their buildings’ contribution to the status of their regimes rather than on the construction itself. In spite of the significance of Yingzao-fashi, construction standards were valued only when rulers felt there was a need to strengthen the empire by political reforms.

Chapter 4

The Construction System and Political Status

4.1 Damuzuo in Yingzao-fashi

The types of Chinese timber structure are generally understood based on the existing heritage of official buildings and vernacular architecture. Liu Dunzhen, being a contemporary of Liang Sicheng, is another pioneer who together with Liang Sicheng laid the foundation of historical research on Chinese architecture. His monograph, History of Ancient Chinese Architecture, published in 1980, offered a comprehensive and chronological review of Chinese architectural history and is deemed as one of the most valued references for understanding Chinese architecture.1 In this book, Liu first classified Chinese existing traditional timber structures into three main types: tailiang 抬梁 (post and lintel), chuandou 穿斗 (tenon through), and jinggan 井干 (log cabin), based on his study on traditional Chinese architecture.2 Most of the subsequent Chinese scholars follow this classification and have produced research on each type, particularly on tailiang and chuandou, which are the dominant structural forms in the north and south China respectively, either for official construction or non-official construction.

Yingzao-fashi, however, may provide us with another way of understanding structural types of Chinese architecture. Liu Dunzhen’s classification of structural forms does not mean a comprehensive understanding of timber structures in the entire history of premodern China. For exploring the essence of the Chinese timber structure, it is necessary to examine the structural features of a given construction category within a specific period of premodern China. The official construction of the Song dynasty was an outstanding representation of Chinese timber construction in the peak period of premodern China. In contrast to the extremely limited architectural information derived from existing timber construction works, Yingzao-fashi,

1 Liu Dunzhen, Zhongguo gudai jianzhushi 中国古代建筑史,1. 2 Ibid, 3.

as the standard of the Song dynasty’s official construction, provides more detailed and precise information about the timber structures of contemporaneous architecture. Therefore, investigating the structural types in Yingzao-fashi is vital for exploring how the Chinese understood timber architecture that accommodated their life in premodern times.

Damuzuo, in Yingzao-fashi, refers to the system of architectural elements related to the structural skeleton, including modules, beams, columns, framework, bracketing, eaves, and rafters. In the regulations chapter of Damuzuo, first Yingzao-fashi prescribes the modularity of the structural system, then describes the detailed rules regarding the size, scope, and manufacturing details of various structural components including bracket elements, timber balcony (平坐), beams, columns, roof rafters, and curving roofs. Also, Yingzao-fashi offered typical examples of different structural systems by using illustrations in the last chapter. Surprisingly, even this seminal work did not elaborate on the technical characteristics, classification, and functions of timber buildings which, by their absence, aroused the interests of architectural historians to study the typology of timber structures in the Song dynasty. Thus, Chinese scholars have devoted much effort to study the relevant text and illustrations of Yingzao-fashi and have attempted to identify the structural types depicted in the document.

However, there is still a controversy over how many structural types are in Yingzao-fashi. Liang Sicheng did not elaborate on the number of structural categories in his writings, while his students Chen Mingda and Guo Qinghua in their research claim that Yingzao-fashi discussed four types in its text, diange (or diantang), tingtang, yuwu 余屋, and tingxie 亭榭.3 Their research covered all structural types of ranked buildings in detail except the yuwu form. However, according to Zhu Yongchun’s recent study, the interpretation of the term yuwu by previous scholars is not correct. In the context of Yingzao-fashi, it should be considered as “other structures”, which means yuwu is not an independent type of structure.4 In addition, tingxie was a simple structural type of building that was often used in gardens and temples for relaxation and without any wall enclosure. There were few illustrations for tingxie in Yingzao-fashi. Consequently, it is widely accepted

3 Guo Daiheng, Zhongguo gudai jianzhushi 中国古代建筑史, Vol.3, 654. 4 In enumerating structure types, some scholars claim that Yingzao-fashi discussed four types in its text, diange, tingtang, yuwu, and tingxie; see Guo Qinghua, ‘Yingzao Fashi: Twelfth-Century Chinese Building Manual,’1- 13; Zhu Yongchun suggests that Yuwu was not a structure type; see Zhu Yongchun, “Guanyu Yingzao-fashi zhong diantang tingtang yu yuwu jigewentide sibian” 关于《营造法式》中殿堂、厅堂与余屋几个问题的思辨, 82-89.

by scholars that Yingzao-fashi described two major structural types, diange and tingtang, and presented many illustrations of them.

The Diange framework was reserved for premodern China’s most magnificent buildings of official construction. It represents the highest rank in structural form. The formal features of the diange can be summarized by studying its illustrations in Yingzao-fashi. The magnificent buildings of royalty or religion, such as the halls of the palaces and temples, were normally built in a diange framework, which helped to make the building look very impressive. Yingzao-fashi depicted the typical patterns of the diange framework using illustrations called dipan 地盘 and ceyang 侧样, roughly equivalent to the plan and cross-sections of modern architectural drawing, respectively.5 As the four ceyang illustrations indicate [Figure 4.1], the columns of the main body were the same height with a set of complex brackets on each column head. “The lowest beam rested on eaves and column brackets and ran the full transverse distance. The ceiling was placed under the lowest beam and covered the whole rectangular plan, which enclosed a perfect cuboid space with columns.”6 In three of the illustrations, attached to and surrounding the main structure was the veranda with lower columns and a small roof [Figure 4.2 a,b,c].

5 Different from modern plan drawings, dipan more precisely is the illustration of the upward view plan of the entire structure rather than the floor plan, indicating inner structural arrangements including the position of columns, brackets and beams above. For most traditional Chinese construction, ceyang is the most useful information to present. See Zhao Chen, “Elevation or Façade,” 198. 6 Ma, “Building Construction and Meaning: The Origin and the Occupation of Chinese Tingtang,” 313.

a b

c d

Figure 4.1 Ceyang illustrations of the diange framework (Li Jie, Yingzaofashi, Vol. 31, Damuzuo zhidu tuyang xia 大木作制度图样下).

The four dipan drawings in Yingzao-fashi, collectively described as dipan fencao 地盘分槽 (plans for the division), display the layout of diange frameworks. They are separately named as dancao 单槽 (single groove) [Figure 4.2a], shuangcao 双槽 (double groove) [Figure 4.2b], fenxin doudicao 分心斗底槽 (compartmentalised groove) [Figure 3.4c], and jinxiang doudicao 金厢斗底槽 (concentric groove) [Figure 4.2d]. These drawings all indicate the position of both columns, beams, and the brackets placed at the axial line between columns. The black circles in dipan drawings denote the column position, while the four parallel lines connecting columns refer to beams and column-top joists. For the term cao 槽 (groove), the

scholar Pan Guxi and He Jianzhong believe that it relates to column rows and eaves brackets atop columns, while Zhu Yongchun argues that cao means the narrow space within the bracket layer.7

The typical examples of diange layout can be detected in the four dipan drawings. Except for fenxin doudicao, the other three drawings all show a cao ring at the outermost that is the veranda attached to the

a b

c d

Figure 4.2 Dipan illustrations of the diange framework (Li Jie, Yingzaofashi, Vol. 31, Damuzuo zhidu tuyang xia 大木作制度图样下). main structures. The dancao was designed with a longitudinal cao row inside the concentric ring enclosed by the front, rear, and gable-side columns and brackets above, which divided the internal space of the building unequally [Figure 4.2a]. In contrast, two longitudinal cao rows in Shuangcao divide the interior space into three compartments, two narrow spaces at the front and the rear attaching to a wide space in the middle [Figure 4.2b]. This wide space was normally viewed as important and used as the main space of the

7 Pan Guxi and He Jianzhong, Yingzao-fashi zhushi 营造法式注释, 27; Zhu Yongchun, “Yingzao-fashi diange di pan fencaitu xintan” 《营造法式》殿阁地盘分槽图新探, 81.

buildings constructed in Shuangcao style. Jingxiang doudicao was a design with three concentric cao rings, and the inmost ring was connected to the gable-side cao row on both sides [Figure 4.2d]. Fenxin doudicao was particularly designed with only one cao ring supporting the building. A longitudinal cao row is added in the centre, which divides the whole building into six equally sized compartments with the two transversal cao rows [Figure 4.2c].

In contrast to diange, tingtang in official construction was used for offices and dwelling buildings of officials. In regard to tingtang, Yingzao-fashi in its illustrations recorded several distinct transverse frames, which are roughly equal to cross-sectional drawings [Figure 4.3]. They are jointly described as jiajian- liangzhu 架间梁柱 (beams and columns used in tingtang along the boundary lines between two adjacent bays). There are eighteen transverse frames illustrated in all. These illustrations show the essential characteristics of tingtang frameworks. “Columns increase in height from the exterior to the interior and beams are connected at one end to the top of the lower column with the other end inserted into the body of the higher column. There were no ceilings and no beams across the whole transverse dimension in the tingtang framework.”8

Figure 4.3 A transverse frame of tingtang frameworks (Li Jie, Yingzaofashi, Vol. 31, Damuzuo zhidu tuyang xia 大木作制度图样下).

8 Ma, “Building Construction and Meaning: The Origin and the Occupation of Chinese Tingtang,” 313.

A tingtang framework is produced by several vertical frames arranged side-by-side and connected together in sequence. The frames connect each other with panjian 攀间 (horizontal joists to hold together two transverse framework members), purlins, and rafters, forming the entire skeleton of a tingtang building. Builders had different choices of design for the interior transverse frames when they built a tingtang structure. The columns are usually not aligned with each other in a longitudinal row, and therefore the number and placement of interior columns are flexible and may vary. It is noteworthy that there is no description of the cao row for tingtang frameworks in Yingzao-fashi, which is the defining difference technically, between tingtang and diange frameworks.

The scholar Fu Xinian divided tingtang frameworks into four hierarchical categories on the basis of their total building depth, expressed by the number of rafters: ten-rafter buildings, eight-rafter buildings, six- rafter buildings, and four-rafter buildings [Figure 4.4].9 Based on the number of interior columns, Fu Xinian also grouped the eighteen patterns of tingtang frameworks depicted in Yingzao-fashi into five typological categories:

1. “Frames with no interior columns (a clear span with two eaves’ columns); only one illustration is provided in Yingzao-fashi; [Figure 4.4 r]; 2. Frames with one interior column that is placed either at the midpoint of the building’s depth (centrally divided, with two eaves’ columns and one interior column) or sideways (a two-rafter beam abutting a rafter beam, with three columns); seven illustrations are presented in Yingzao-fashi; [Figure 4.4 a, f, g, l, m, o, p]; 3. Frames with two interior columns that are either placed symmetrically (a beam in both the front and the back, with four columns) or placed asymmetrically (a two-rafter beam at the front and a one-rafter beam in the back, with four columns); five illustrations are presented in Yingzao-fashi; [Figure 4.4 b, f, h, n, q]; 4. Frames with three symmetrically positioned interior columns (centrally divided, with a two-rafter beam at the front and the back, with five columns); two illustrations are presented in Yingzao-fashi; [Figure 4.4 c, j]; and

9 Fu Xinian, Traditional Chinese Architecture: Twelve Essays, 260.

5. Frames with four symmetrically positioned interior columns that take one of three shapes: a one-rafter beam at both the front and the back of the structure, with six columns; a one-rafter beam and a two- rafter beam at both the front and the back, with six columns; and two two-rafter beams at both the front and the back, with six columns; three illustrations are presented in Yingzao-fashi [Figure 4.4 d, e, k].”10

10-rafter framework 8-rafter frameworks 6-rafter frameworks 4-rafter frameworks

Figure 4.4 Illustrations of tingtang frameworks, reproduced by the author from Li Jie, Yingzaofashi, Vol. 31, Damuzuo zhidu tuyang xia 大木作制度图样下.

10 Ibid.

Diange and tingtang occupy the main structural types of Song official construction. From a technical point of view, both of them belong to the tailiang structure of Liu Dunzhen’s classification, as beams of these two structural types are not only connecting components but also bearing the upper load.11 The components of the tingtang framework are more closely interlocked with each other than in the diange framework. Particularly for the tingtang structure, columns are all fully dimensioned from the ground to the roof purlins, and beams have one end inserted into the body of a column. These formal features of tingtang are analogous to that of the chundou structure, suggesting that probably in the Song dynasty the chundou structure already existed and influenced the contemporary structures of official construction. In the illustrations, Yingzao- fashi depicts more patterns of the tingtang framework, which means tingtang is more flexible and diverse than diange. However, more important questions are how the Chinese constructed diange and tingtang and why they produced timber frameworks in this way. The essential features of these two authorised timber frameworks can be further explored through their construction methods that are more directly related to their political status.

4.2 Official construction systems

Although the diange framework is easily distinguished from tingtang in the illustrations, the essential distinction between them has been one of the core topics in the current, largely Chinese, scholarship on the structures of Yingzao-fashi. Researchers suggest that the diange framework originated from a building type of Tai 台 (terrace), prevalent in the first millennium BCE of China.12 On the other hand, the tingtang framework maintained a close relationship with the chuandou structure defined by Liu Dunzhen.13 In particular, Zhang Shiqing 张十庆 re-classified the structural types of Chinese architecture based on different construction methods and further elaborates on the technical features of diange and tingtang. According to his research, diange represented a form produced through the amassing of building elements vertically, while tingtang referred to a structure formed by securing transverse timber frames using purlins and lintels

11 Zhang Shiqing, “Cong goujian siwei kan gudai jianzhu jiegou de leixing yu yanhua” 从建构思维看古代建筑结构的类型与演化, 168. 12 Zhou Xueying 周学鹰, “Handai gaotai jianzhu jishu yanjiu” 汉代高台建筑技术研究, 71. 13 Zhang Shiqing, “Cong goujian siwei kan gudai jianzhu jiegou de leixing yu yanhua”从建构思维看古代建筑结构的类型与演化, 169.

longitudinally.14 Diange and tingtang necessarily represent two original construction methods about shaping a timber structure and ensuring it was durable.

Diange represents the timber structures of the vertical model of construction. A typical diange structure is composed of three horizontal structural layers that are added on top of each other [Figure 4.5].15 The lowest layer is the column network, forming the main body of the building and consisting of columns and members lodged between column tops, such as architraves and shunfuchuan 顺栿串(a tie-beam installed between columns in the same direction as the principal beam above it). The middle layer is the bracket-set layer that is placed atop the column layer and composed of bracket-blocks and bracket-arms formed in clusters, as

Roof frames

Brackets

Columns and beams

Figure 4.5 Layers of diange structure, reproduced by the author from Pan Guxi and He jianzhong, Yingzao-fashi jiedu 《营造法式》解读, 24.

14 Ibid. 15 Pan Guxi and He jianzhong, Yingzao-fashi jiedu 《营造法式》解读, 24.

well as the framework of exposed beams and a flat, coffered ceiling. In Song official construction, this layer ties together the body and roof of the building and maintains overall stability. The uppermost layer is the roof layer that comprises transverse and triangular-shaped frames of posts, beams, and struts that are placed in accordance with the exposed beams of the layer below. Together with purlins and rafters, they form the structural framework of the roof.

In contrast, tingtang represents timber structures’ horizontal mode of construction. A building with a tingtang framework, in essence, was produced by the longitudinal connection of transverse timber frames [Figure 4.6]. A tingtang framework was an integrated structure including several single transverse frames, the architraves and lintels connecting the frames. The space between two single timber frames, called Jian 间 (bay), was the basic unit of the interior space of Chinese architecture, and the more bays the building has, the larger its scale and the greater its status.

Yingzao-fashi employed distinct techniques to express diange and tingtang structures. These techniques of architectural expression are largely different from those of the modern era but widely comprehended and applied by construction officials and builders at that time. Diange construction adopted dipan and ceyang together as a particular way of architectural expression. In contrast, the tingtang framework in the book only

Figure 4.6 Tingtang framework (Fu Xinian, Traditional Chinese Architecture: Twelve Essays, 264). .

presented the illustrations of jiajian-liangzhu. 16 If these illustrations were considered as drawings of transverse sections of the whole structure, like ceyang, it is strange that, compared to diange, Yingzao-fash failed to list any dipan drawings for tingtang. From a modern architectural viewpoint, it is impossible to identify a structure only with a section, devoid of plan and elevations. How did the Chinese builders achieve that? It is probably because that illustration was not merely a kind of elevation or section drawing (which derives from modern architectural expression) but a specific diagram, accepted by construction officials, builders, and artisans at that time, to identify the entire structure. These participants in the construction operation could achieve that when they associated the diagram with the building’s scale and function, which were often determined by the political status of the building’s owner and regulated by construction laws.

Within the Chinese architectural discourse, a drawing called “the beams and columns between two bays (间缝内用梁柱)” can identify an integrated tingtang building. “The width of a building in a tingtang framework normally depended on the number of bays, which was indicated through the front facade, the main visual focus of a Chinese building. In this case, builders and common people preferred to describe the general scale

Figure 4.7 Transverse frame and Jian of a tingtang framework, produced by the author from Fu Xinian, Traditional Chinese Architecture: Twelve Essays, 264. of a Chinese building by the number of bays provided, for example ‘a five-bay building’.”17 On the other hand, building depth and height were established by the dimension of the transverse frames crossing the

16 Li Jie, Yingzao-fashi, Vol. 31, Damuzuo zhidu tuyang 大木作制度图样. 17 Ma, “Building Construction and Meaning: The Origin and the Occupation of Chinese Tingtang,” 315.

plan. So, once the designer and builder confirmed how many bays the building would consist of and what type of transverse frame would be adopted, the massing of the whole structure would be set up in three- dimensions [Figure 4.7]. There was no need to consider the plan layout since that had already been determined by the number of bays and the position of the transverse frames. That explains why Yingzao- fashi only presented an image of transverse frames to show the beams and columns between two bays. This expression fully matched the tingtang framework and was likely to be the easiest way to guide construction, because, at a technical level, builders only needed to refer to the types of transverse frames already depicted in Yingzao-fashi if they had a mental image of the scale and function of the structure they were going to build.

How did builders understand the scale and function of a building before construction? In imperial China, that was never a subject that builders needed to consider, for imperial laws provided rigorous regulations for the scale and style of various buildings based on the hierarchy of the empire. For instance, in the Tang and Song dynasties, there were nine grades of officers, and diverse regulations were issued to define the building form and scale of offices and dwellings for officers in different grades.18 Tang-huiyao 唐会要 (the historical records of the national regulatory framework of the Tang dynasty) provided for the relevant clauses of Yingshanling 营缮令 (Code of Construction and Repair) in the Tang dynasty:

The width of mansion buildings for officers above fifth grade was not allowed to be over five bays, and that for officers under sixth grade was not allowed to be over three bays. ”19

The Law of Construction and Repair in the subsequent Song dynasty followed these Tang dynasty provisions without any change.20

Yingzao-fashi, as a compilation of imperial official construction standards, also prescribed the scope to which diange and tingtang frameworks were to be applied, technically. As mentioned in the last chapter,

18 Ibid, 316. 19 Wang Bo, Tang-huiyao 唐会要, “五品已上堂舍, 不得过五间七架, 六品七品已下堂舍, 不得过三间五架.” 20 Tianyige bowuguan 天一阁博物馆 and Zhongguo shekeyuan lishi yanjiusuo 中国社科院历史研究所, Tianyige cang mingchaoben tianshengling jiaozheng 天一阁藏明抄本天圣令校证, 661-662.

Yingzao-fashi used the modular system of caifen for all dimensional measurements in structural carpentry, to control the proportion of the overall building and its major components. Following these explicit regulations for building function and scale, builders could identify a structure easily under the guidance of Yingzao-fashi.

However, timber construction in Yingzao-fashi is more than structures. Liang Sicheng, diange and tingtang have been studied by Chinese scholars as structural types for a long time, but there are still disagreements aroused when they interpret the content of Yingzao-fashi. For example, as stated earlier, the question of how many structural types are in Yingzao-fashi has not been well answered by architectural academics. Also, scholars dispute the confusing use of the name diange and diantang in the illustration notes of the book.21 This is because Yingzao-fashi never clearly stated the names and features of these two structural types, and sometimes the two names were misused. For example, referring to the same structural model, the note on dipan illustrations says “diange dipan”, but on ceyang it says “diantang deng ceyang”.22 In the Yingzao- fashi text, there are twenty-eight mentions of diange, but twelve mentions of diantang, and they seem to refer to the same type of structures.

These discrepancies might be settled when we attempt to understand the content of Yingzao-fashi from another perspective. This research suggests that there were no specific names of the structural types in Yingzao-fashi. Instead, all construction matters, including the frameworks, modular system, architectural expression, component manufacture and selection, contributed to a more comprehensive concept that was hidden in Yingzao-fashi —— the construction system. The vertical and horizontal construction systems served different users and adopted specific methods and regulations for each construction focus. For instance, the frameworks of these two construction systems were formed by different construction methods —— vertical piling and horizontal connection of building elements. The two construction systems are not presented clearly in Yingzao-fashi but are tacitly understood by contemporaneous construction officials and builders.

These specific construction methods and regulations for both construction systems are defined in Yingzao- fashi through the particularly Chinese concept of fa 法. The Chinese character 法 has two meanings: either

21 Zhu Yongchun, “Yingzao-fashi diange dipan fencaitu xintan”《营造法式》殿阁地盘分槽图新探,79. 22 Li Jie, Yingzao-fashi, Vol. 31, Damuzuo zhidu tuyang 大木作制度图样.

methods or laws. These two meanings were fully expressed in Yingzao-fashi. First, there were given methods to follow for all construction works. At the same time, these methods are also regulations with legal force against which official construction must abide. As a construction code with legal force, Yingzao-fashi explicitly expressed the second meaning of fa in its title, while the first meaning was understood by craftsman when they applied the given methods in construction practice. Fa was frequently mentioned in the text of Yingzao-fashi such as zhewu 折屋 (roof curving) fa, juwu 举屋 (roof rising) fa. In particular, diange fa was described in Yingzao-fashi Volume 19, referring to the standard of vertical construction.23 Another timber construction manual in the Song dynasty, Mujing, cited tingtang fa in its text:

In all circumstances, the length of the crossbeam governs the height of the ridge purlin, and the ratio between them leads to a progressive increase or decrease in the height of the ridge purlin. If a crossbeam is eight chi long and a ridge purlin of three and a half chi in height is used, the case follows tingtang fa.24

This text describes one example of the regulations of tingtang fa. It is clear that once the methods and regulations of specific construction work, fa, were identified, all samples of such work must follow its fa. The word fa in the name of Ying zao fa shi, also suggests the nature of the manual that is the standard that all levels official construction must follow. In this case, fa allows the officials, builders and artisans to achieve complex construction with little professional knowledge of construction techniques; all they needed to do was to follow the technical details of fa. Such a high degree of standardisation both promoted and restricted the development of Chinese timber structure.

However, the Song people, as well as all the premodern Chinese, may understand official construction from another angle. Chapter 3 explains that Chinese rulers emphasised the political function of a building as their main focus in official construction. In the Song dynasty, the vertical construction method was mainly applied in structures serving royal families and religions, while horizontally focused construction was mostly used for government buildings. Therefore, these two construction systems can also be described as royal construction and government construction. Construction participants, builders, and officials were more concerned that the construction system was defined by its political status rather than by its structural form.

23 Ibid, Vol. 19, Damuzuo gongxian san 大木作功限三: “城门道功限楼台铺作准殿阁法.” 24 Shen Kuo 沈括, Mengxi bitan 梦溪笔谈, “如梁长八尺, 配极三尺五寸, 则厅堂法也.”

For example, in Yingzao-fashi, diantang usually referred to single-storey structures, and diange was a generic name for multi-storey buildings. Neither of them is the name of a particular structural system, but they are names of architectural works belonging to royal construction and following the same building method and regulations.

Nevertheless, in general, each system of official construction had its building types. The important works of royal construction include dian 殿, ge 阁, tang 堂, tai 台, and que 阙, while government construction was often defined by its core buildings of ting 厅 and tang 堂. These named buildings present their unique formal and structural characteristics, but due to the lack of knowledge of the roots of Chinese architecture, they were largely misunderstood in studies beyond China. For instance, the Chinese buildings Dian, Tang, Ting in most English literature on Chinese architecture, are all rendered into the English word “hall”, thereby losing their unique original meanings. Consequently, the significant building types in official construction are introduced below to help readers understand their meanings more precisely.

Gong 宫: The term Gong indicated a complex of many buildings with a rectangular plan, separated from one another by courtyards, all contained within encircling walls. The initial meaning of gong was identical to the Chinese word shi 室, which means an ordinary room. The Confucian classic Liji 礼记 described gong as a common dwelling or room of a Confucian.25 A study carried out by a Tang scholar 陆德明 (550 - 630 CE), suggested that any residential building could be named gong up until the Qin dynasty, no matter the status of the person.26 In the pre-Qin Chinese literature, gong was frequently mentioned as the common name of state kings’ palaces. The semantic treatise Shiming 释名 (explaining names), written by Liu Xi 刘熙 in the late Eastern Han dynasty (25 - 220 CE),27 claimed that gong was a building with a dome roof. However, from the Qin forward, gong mostly referred to the entire royal palace, the large-scale building group where emperors lived, or a small-scale building group as a specific part of a palace servicing royal affairs. Normally, gong was no longer used to name individual buildings except some religious structures.

25 Liji 礼记, Ruxing 儒行, “儒有一亩之宫, 环堵之室.” 26 Lu Deming 陆德明, Jingdian shiwen 经典释文, “古者贵贼同称宫. 秦汉以来, 惟王者所居称宫焉.” 27 Shiming 释名, Gong 宫, “宫穹也, 屋见垣上穹隆也.”

Tang 堂: Tang is an important architectural concept in premodern China and was widely used to name the important individual buildings of both royal and government construction.28 The book Shiming explained tang as the “opening” and “bright space”. Tang was the building for ancestor worship in the earliest times and then became the core building of people’s dwellings and became a symbol of its owner, due to the rise of Confucianism. During the Song dynasty, tang was both the core buildings of the government offices and personal dwellings.

Dian 殿: The Chinese word 殿 was created no earlier than the Zhou dynasty.29 The historical literature first mentioning dian is Zhanguoce 战国策, a text that contains anecdotes of political manipulation and warfare during the Warring States period (5th to 3rd centuries BCE). Zhanguoce documented that “Goshawks were fighting on the dian.”30 It is unknown which building type dian here refers to, and that is the only mention of dian in Zhanguoce’s text. The first well-documented dian was the main hall of the Epang Palace, Qian- dian 前殿 (front hall). From the Han dynasty, dian became the general name of important individual buildings of royal palaces and temples. Dian buildings were also used for specific functions, including court meetings, official business, the living quarters of the emperor and his family, and royal education. Except for royal construction and religious buildings, no other structures could be named as dian.

Ge 阁：The oldest Chinese dictionary known, Erya 尔雅, explains ge as a long timber stick to prevent the door from opening. In the Qin and Han period, ge, a multistory timber structure, was the main building form of royal palaces. From the Han dynasty, ge started to become a multistory timber structure for viewing the scenery or storing goods. In the Song dynasty, royal ge buildings were also places for storing deceased emperors’ writings and paintings, such as Tianzhang ge 天章阁, Huanzhang ge 焕章阁, Baowen ge 宝文阁, and Jiangzhen ge 降真阁.

Que 阙：Que was also a multistory structure that was constructed by timber, normally placed in pairs as a gate to mark the location of a palace or city before the Tang dynasty. However, commonly within que buildings, there was only a small interior space for guards to stand. Sometimes there was no usable interior

28 The evolution of tang is elaborated in Chapter 6. 29 Dian is elaborated in Chapter 5. 30 Zhanguo ce 战国策, Qinren shiren wei anlingjun 秦人使人谓安陵君, “苍鹰击于殿上.”

space available at all. From the Tang dynasty forwards, stone-constructed que buildings were more normally placed at the entrance of the tomb of royalty and advanced officials.

Tai 台：In historical literature, tai more frequently refers to the whole combination of timber structure and terrace, as a strikingly high terrace was a most visible feature.31 During the Spring and Autumn period (770 - 476 BCE) and the Warring State period, tai was a generic name applied to the whole palace complex of a state, while in the Song dynasty, tai was normally considered as a freestanding structure for entertainment.

Ting 厅：Ting refers to a one-storey building for administrative officers to manage governmental affairs.32 In the Song, ting was not only the office building for administrative affairs but also the main building for some grades of officers as well as common people’s dwellings. Ting and tang were the core buildings of government construction to service China’s social and family life at that time.

She 舍：She in Chinese was a general word to describe a room, group of rooms or building in which someone may live or stay. In particular, it referred to temporary accommodation in the Song dynasty.

4.3 The political status of timber structures

Modern scholars frequently employ an inappropriate Western glossary to understand premodern architecture. One of the mistakes people studying history often make is to interpret objects of premodern history by notions of modern society, for they are not able to gain full knowledge of the past. The current discourse on architecture is to a large extent based on the language of modern architecture, which emerged at the end of the 19th century not only as a result of revolutions in technology, engineering, and building materials but also as a result of significant social, cultural and institutional developments. Modern architecture developed a specific language which is far different from its premodern counterpart. Even for Chinese scholars who conducted much research and clearly understood the technical features of ancient architecture, it is hard for them to find a modern vocabulary by which they can explain the comprehensive nature and meaning of historical architecture. The general public’s unfamiliarity with architectural terminology and their lack of

31 Tai is elaborated in Chapter 5. 32 The evolution of ting is elaborated in Chapter 6.

knowledge about the historical context, also means it is difficult to get a full sense of scholars’ findings, thus impeding academic recognition and understanding of historical reality.

This issue has been exacerbated for Western academics studying Chinese architecture. To introduce various works of premodern Chinese architecture, scholars have to use the language of modern architecture, mostly Western architecture, to describe types of Chinese building, since their knowledge of Chinese architecture and its language is inadequate.33 For instance, the term “public building” is a modern architectural concept, referring to structures occupied by a public authority and frequently visited by the public. This terminology, however, was not usual in Chinese architectural discourse since, in imperial China, ordinary people were not allowed to visit buildings occupied by the royal authority and officials freely. Chinese construction declared a clear demarcation between official and non-official construction.

From the viewpoint of modern architecture, function was the primary indicator for people to recognise buildings. There are many ways of classifying buildings, including function, type, use, size, style, period, design, and performance (e.g. energy consumption, and accessibility). Among these classifying factors, function is the most understandable property identifying a building, as it is the prime reason for construction and occupancy. Modern buildings’ functions are unlikely to be adaptable to distinctly different uses because different types of buildings hold dissimilar formal features and spatial layout. It is common knowledge that specific functions all too often mark modern buildings, and buildings with the same function share similar styles of architectural form and space.

This thinking, deeply rooted in modern people, however, is inappropriate for understanding Chinese timber construction. Buildings in premodern China were certainly constructed for different purposes, but many of them were of similar form and space configuration that was determined by a timber skeleton. The ease with which the form and space of timber structure can accommodate different functions bestowed a tremendous potential for altering the utility of buildings. As Nancy Steinhardt states, “any reasonably sized living courtyard buildings could be turned into hotel or restaurant buildings – all that was needed was a public entrance into the court.”34 A Buddhist temple during certain festivals could be changed into a market for

33 Alexandra Harrer at Tsinghua University is working on a full glossary of Chinese-English terms that may resolve some of the longstanding issues of nomenclature in Chinese architecture. 34 Steinhardt, Chinese Architecture, 12.

citizens to exchange their products,35 and sometimes residences were converted into family temples.36 Similarly, the boundary between a governmental office (yashu 衙署) and a private residence of officials (sizhai 私宅) was rather vague. Indeed, historical documents have evidenced that in the Tang dynasty, it was popular to combine government offices with officials’ private dwellings in one building complex, named “Office Dwelling (衙宅)”.37

The structural and formal similarity of construction works blurred the distinctiveness of different building types of Chinese architecture. For instance, the building used for meetings in premodern China was generally named as ting, but for some cases, it was also called tang. One type of structure sharing an identical name could also possess many diverse functions. Typically, tang can be used for the name of buildings for rituals, ceremonies, education, private conversations, judicial adjudication, daily office work, and entertainment.38 Tang can also be a structure found in royal palaces, government buildings, gardens, officials, and commoners’ dwellings.

Scholars are often confused when they explore the classification of premodern Chinese buildings and their onomastics. Chen Mingda, in his book, The Study of Timber Structures in Yingzao-fashi, commented on the classification of Chinese architecture:

Today, we still know nothing about whether there was a certain classification for ancient Chinese architecture, and if so, what the principle of the classification was. We can understand timber construction in the Song dynasty only through the study on Yingzao-fashi. Diverse building names appear in the text of Yingzao-fashi, like dian, diantang, dianyu, diange, louge, and so on. These names seemingly refer to works of

35 Meng Yuanlao 孟元老, dongjing menghua lu 东京梦华录, Xiangguosi nei wanxing jiaoyi 相国寺内万姓交易, “相国寺每月五次开放, 万姓交易.” 36 Faure, “Between House and Home,” 285. 37 The “Office Dwelling” is further discussed in Section 5.1. 38 It is noteworthy that some regional building terms were often ignored by Beijing-based scholars who used the familiar name they knew, including tang and ting, when encountering structures in southern China. Scholars in that vast region are today restoring local names.

the same building type. Exploring the meaning of these building names in detail would be a rather difficult task.39

Based on the formal features, Chen classified these named buildings into fives categories: single-storey halls (including works of diantang and tingtang construction), multiple-storey buildings, other buildings, building attachments, and mini-type structures. He also listed the building types of each category in the light of his interpretation of the building names mentioned in Yingzao-fashi. However, as he admitted, his classification was not a comprehensive discussion on the onomastics and categories of Chinese architecture.40

For Chinese timber structure, neither function nor formal feature is the primary principle for classifying productions of Chinese timber construction. The degree of possession of wealth and resources determined the political classes’ ability to develop their construction. The royal families occupied the topmost position in the hierarchy of politics, holding the highest political power and commanding access to government wealth that mainly consisted of taxation. Their construction projects, typically grandiose building complexes whose construction required an immense assembly of labour and construction materials, were patronised by imperial central finance and managed by the specific government departments or organisations. Officials were the class which served the royal families as their executors of governmental administration. In contrast to royalty, imperial officials enjoyed a limited privileged political status which held the actual administrative power of all level governments, exempted them from taxes and corvee, and gained financial and technical support from governments for the construction of their offices and residences.41

Although the function and form of a building could be altered in some cases, the political status of timber construction would never change. While people may not be able to identify the function of a specific building type, they undoubtedly had a clear mind about the political status of the building’s owner. For example, the functions of tang buildings constructed in commoners’ families or clans, including conversation, living, and family or clan rituals, could be similar to or different from those of officials’ Tang, but without holding any political status and symbolism. In contrast, a Tang building in government and

39 Chen Mingda, Yingzao-fashi damuzuo yanjiu 营造法式大木作研究, 27. 40 Ibid, 28. 41 Corvee means enforced unpaid labour imposed by a state to a vassal for the purposes of official cosntruction in premodern China, which lasts for limited periods of time, typically only a certain number of days’ work each year.

official dwellings could be closely associated with the political position of the officials and accepted as an architectural expression of officials’ political status. Likewise, the building type Lou referred to some multiple-level structures of both official and non-official construction that could function as restaurants, libraries, and gate towers. However, the Lou buildings, belonging to commoners and located in the commercial areas and communities, were never regarded as a work of royal construction, while the Lou buildings built in a royal palace would never allow commoners to visit freely. Thus, political occupation was the most explicit and understandable quality of the Chinese timber buildings, as will be seen in the forthcoming chapters. Political status was only attached to official construction and buildings, as commoners did not have any political status in premodern China.

In addition, there was a clear demarcation between government construction and common construction, although they shared the same construction methods. In the Song dynasty, structures built by governments to house officials were called Guanshe 官舍 (official residences), whereas Minzhai 民宅 (commoner houses) was the generic name for commoner’s residences. Guanshe buildings were generally built with a connection to governmental offices so that officials could go to their offices conveniently. Guanshe buildings were generally built to offer accommodation to officials, but not every official was qualified to occupy a Guanshe building. It was common in the Song dynasty that demoted officials were not allowed to live in Guanshe buildings. This fact indicated that Guanshe buildings only served the officials in power. The demoted officials who were banished to a place, in reality, had lost their power and associated political status. Even though they retained the identity of officials with a higher rank than the local officials, they were deprived of the right of housing in the buildings constructed by governments, which was an exclusive political prerogative for officials. Dwellings of government construction were the physical structures that offered accommodation to the class of officials, but this benefit was subject to their actual political power and status rather than by nominal official rank. In other words, Guanshe buildings were accepted by both officials and commoners as an architectural symbol of the political influence of officials rather than their actual official position. In contrast, the works of common construction were never attached with such symbolic meaning, although they could also function as a place for officials’ residential living.

As example concerns the well-known politician of the Northern Song dynasty, Kou Zhun 寇准 (961-1023 CE). He acted as the prime minister from 1004 to 1006 CE and was demoted to the city of Hangzhou in 1019 CE. When Kou Zhun arrived, the local government refused to accommodate him. However, due to his good reputation, the local community voluntarily constructed a dwelling for Kou Zhun without any financial support from the government. According to the historical record, the local people competed to provide the

cost of construction materials, and they spontaneously organised themselves to finish the construction.42 This dwelling, built by local commoners but for an official, was still a Minzhai building identified without any political symbolism. The scholar-official Su Zhe 苏辙 (1039-1112 CE), famed for his literary achievements in Chinese history, was a supporter of the Wang Anshi Reform. When the dissenters of the reform returned to power, Su Che was demoted to the city of Leizhou in 1097. The local government “did not allow him to live in the Guanshe building, so he had to rent a Minzhai building to settle down.”43

However, most of the officials in the Song dynasty lived in the government buildings exclusively built for them.44 The imperial construction system strictly maintained the distinction between commoners’ structures and officials’ dwellings and offices, but that does not mean government and commoners’ construction were invariably different building forms. Structurally, they shared the same construction method, horizontal construction, in spite of the simpler structural forms and rougher details that commoners’ buildings often presented. The political status of official buildings was formally expressed by the building details, especially by the selection of some specific components.

The Song people understood the importance of the political status of timber structures, but could they detect the political status of a building from its outward appearance? To answer this question, the author scrutinised the external features of Song timber buildings, which, to a large extent, were determined by their construction method and internal structural form. The existing historic buildings, initially built in the Song dynasty, fail to offer authentic information on Song building form and techniques as all of them have gone through several periods of repair and reconstruction. As an official construction code, Yingzao-fashi in its illustrations depicts the structural forms of both royal and government construction but does not elaborate on the principles applied to select frameworks and their components for the different construction categories, which were instrumental in shaping the external image of a building.

The selection of frameworks and building components for a building was largely related to the political status of its owner. The construction codes in the Tang and Song dynasties provided more information for

42 Jian Shaoyu 江少虞, Shishi leiyuan 事实类苑, Vol.11, “百姓闻之, 竞荷瓦木, 不督而会, 公宇立成.” 43 Zhao Yushi 赵与时, Bing tui lu 宾退录, “不许居官舍，遂僦民屋.” 44 Most officials in capital cities and all officials in regional governments lived in the buildings specifically constructed for them. Only a few junior officials in the capital cities needed to rent or purchase dwellings for living. See He Shaohua 何少华, “Songdai guanyuan zhufang wenti yanjiu”宋代官员住房问题研究, 5.

exploring the relationship between the building details and its owner’s political status at that time. Articles 4 to 6 in the document, Yingshanling, clearly recorded the regulations and selection principles for building roofs, eaves brackets, and height in association with the occupiers’ political status:

Article 4: Buildings of the royal ancestral temple and royal palaces, as well as the gates of Earth Temple and buildings of monasteries and shrines, all adopt the Sie 四阿 roof (hip roof) with the exclusive roof decoration of Diwei 鸱尾 (tail of sparrow hawk). Each gate of the palace in the capital city, as well as the main gate of the regional governments at the Zhou level, should be all decorated with Diwei.45

Article 5: For princes, dukes and those whose political status is lower, their residential buildings are not allowed to use multiple-layer brackets and coffers. Residences of those whose official ranks are of the third and above are not allowed to surpass a nine-rafter depth structure, while residences of those whose official ranks are between the fifth and third are not allowed to surpass a seven-rafter depth structure. The combination hip-and-gable roofs (歇山顶) should be adopted in the Ting structure [of officials’ residences whose ranks are of the fifth and above]. Residences of those whose official ranks are of the sixth and below are not allowed to surpass a five-rafter depth structure. The gatehouses of officials whose ranks are of the third and above are not allowed to surpass a three-bay and two-rafter depth structure. For officials whose ranks are of the fifth and above, their gatehouses are not allowed to surpass a three-bay and two-corridor structure. For commoners and officials whose ranks are of the six and below, their gatehouses are not allowed to surpass a one-bay and two-corridor structure. Wutou Gates (乌头门) generally are still used in residences of those whose ranks are of the fifth and above. For those inheriting residential houses from their official father or grandfather, even though the descendants have not been granted a hereditary rank, let them live in the old residences.46

45 Tianyige bowuguan 天一阁博物馆 and Zhongguo shekeyuan lishi yanjiusuo 中国社科院历史研究所, Tianyige cang mingchaoben tianshengling jiaozheng 天一阁藏明抄本天圣令校证, 661. “太庙及宫殿皆四阿, 施鸱尾. 社门、寺观、神祠亦如之.” 46 Ibid, “诸王公以下, 舍屋不得施重拱, 藻井. 三品以上不得过九架, 五品以上不得过七架, 并厅厦两头. 六品以下不得过五架, 其门舍, 三品以上不得过五架三间, 五品以上不得过三间两厦, 六品以下及庶人不得过一间两厦. 五品以上仍连作乌头大门. 父、祖舍宅及门, 子孙虽荫尽, 仍听依旧居住.”

Article 6: Neither residences of officials nor commoners are allowed to have multiple-storey buildings where people can overlook other inhabitants’ houses.47

These statements indicate that the hip roof and the decoration of Diwei can only be utilised in royal construction buildings, while the combination hip-and-gable roofs were widely used as a standard roof style for the core building, called ting, of residences of advanced imperial officials (fifth rank and above). Here, the combination hip-and-gable roofs was an architectural element to label the residences of advanced officials. Also, the texts indicate that multiple-layer brackets were not allowed in the officials’ and commoners’ residences, and the residences of officials and commoners could only be constructed on one level. The political status of timber construction can thus be judged from the roof style, bracket form, and the number of building storeys.

4.4 Construction systems in Song paintings

The formal features of distinct construction systems can be studied from the Song paintings. Despite the specific regulations for building forms, construction codes in the Tang and Song dynasty fail to present any visual imagery of buildings, but the contemporary arts do. During the Song dynasty, Chinese painting reached a new level of accomplishment. “The works of the Song painters were influenced by their political ideals of bringing order to the world and tackling the huge issues affecting the whole of their society.”48 Hence, their paintings often depicted huge and sweeping landscapes that often included diverse buildings. These landscape paintings were universally favoured among the gentry class, emperors, members of royal families, and scholar-officials and produced in a tremendous number over the Song period.

The authentic expression of buildings in the Song paintings relied on the Song painters who normally needed to receive years of professional training in the Imperial Painting Academy, the national institution and the college of painting art, in order to become proficient in producing high-quality landscape paintings. The Imperial Painting Academy, under the direct administration of the imperial government, was first established in the Five Dynasties. The academy gathered the most proficient painters in the country to draw portraits

47 Ibid, “诸公私第宅, 皆不得起楼阁, 临视人家.” 48 Ebrey, The Cambridge Illustrated History of China, 163.

for the nobles. Painters were required to record important social events in their paintings, which helped to improve the skills of the painters. The Song dynasty united China in 960 CE and expanded the Imperial Painting Academy, and it became the creative centre for painting in that era. The entrance examination for the painting academy was included in the imperial civil service examination system. From the Emperor Huizong’s reign to Emperor Xiaozong’s reign (1127 - 1279 CE), the Imperial Painting Academy reached its peak of development, and painters from all parts of the empire were recruited to serve the needs of the court.

Under the auspices of the institution, an important artistic achievement of the Song dynasty, especially the Northern Song, was the creation of the highly realistic, descriptive style of court painting. Over time, the varied styles represented by this diverse school of artists in the previous dynasties were welded together into a harmonious academic manner that valued a naturalistic, closely descriptive portrayal of the physical world. The Emperor Huizong (1082 - 1135 CE), himself an accomplished painter and calligrapher, played a significant role in forging the Song painting style.49 Emperor Huizong proposed that the fundamental purpose of painting was to be true to nature. He, with considerable sophistication, set about defining orthodox painting subjects and styles and promoted the realism embracing auspicious moments and motifs.50 “Huizong’s precise, realistic recording of the surface texture of natural objects was simply the result of his desire to record with loving care the little things that filled his days with pleasure.”51 The ruler’s direct involvement in establishing artistic direction helped Song painting reach a zenith of Chinese art history. The highly realistic descriptive style followed by the professional painters of the Imperial Painting Academy led to the realistic and sophisticated presence of buildings in contemporary paintings.

Some landscape paintings with an architectural theme were produced as a specific Chinese painting type Jiehua, designed for capturing subjects like palaces, utensils, vehicles and ships.52 Jiehua was created early in the Jin dynasty (266 - 420 CE) but well developed during the Tang and Song period. It features the use of a ruler and a bamboo stick to draw straight lines during the painting process. The bamboo stick was rounded and polished at one end, and the other end was cut with a groove in which a brush pen could be inlaid. When drawing a picture, the painter with one hand, placed and pressed the ruler at the position required, and with the other hand, held the brush pen with the bamboo stick clinging against the ruler. A

49 Ebrey, Emperor Huizong and Late Northern Song China, 219. 50 Murck, Poetry and Painting in Song China, 192. 51 Rowland, “The Problem of Hui Tsung,” 20. 52 For a historical review of Jiehua, see Maeda, “Chieh-Hua: Ruled-Line Painting in China,” 123-41.

relatively horizontal or perpendicular line is produced on paper if the painter drives the brush pen to glide evenly along the ruler. This skill was widely applied in the process of drawing buildings, where straight lines had to be produced.

The basic principles of Song paintings followed by imperial painters (probably taught at the Imperial Painting Academy), enabled them to provide authentic information about contemporary buildings in their pictures. Some intricate and realistic scenes, like structures and figures, were often painted in the foreground with rich and delicate details occupying the visual locus of the whole painting. In contrast, the background portrayed the quality of infinite space expressed by the manifold mountains and streaming rivers. However, during the reign of Emperor Huizong, even the artfully blurred background was eliminated in some paintings. The activities and scenes of real-life were more realistically described in some painter’s works, typically the painter Zhang Zeduan’s masterpieces of Qingming-shanghe-tu 清明上河图 (along the river during the Qingming Festival) and Jinmingchi-zhengbiao-tu 金明池争标图 (boat regatta in the Gold Bright Pool). These paintings recorded authentic images of the timber construction works in the Song dynasty, and offer important historical materials in investigating the externally formal distinctions of buildings of royal, government, and common construction.

A masterpiece of Jiehua depicting products of royal construction was the painting of Ruihe 瑞鹤 (Propitious Crane). It was drawn by Emperor Huizong and showed a flock of cranes hovering over a palatial building [Figure 4.8]. According to Huizong’s own inscription and the poem that follows to the left, the painting simply records an actual event witnessed by thousands one evening early in the year 1112 CE. But this painting may lie. Peter Sturman, in his article, presents the accumulated evidence, pointing to anything but the spontaneous event that Huizong’s rather ingenuine inscription suggests.53 However, he acknowledged the genuine quality of the image the picture reflected by examing what he called Huizong’s “appropriation of reality.”54 Although the palatial building was only partially depicted in this painting, the typical formal features of royal construction can still be studied through the incomplete image. The three-level eaves brackets, conceivably positioned on beams and columns, form an independent layer supporting the huge roof that is a typical double-hipped hip roof (四阿庑殿顶), which is dedicated for royal construction. The decorations of Diwei were placed at each side of the roof ridge where two vivid cranes stand. These features

53 Sturman, “Cranes above Kaifeng: The Auspicious Image at the Court of Huizong,” 44-45. 54 Ibid, 34-44.

are completely consistent with the regulation covering the form of royal construction works in the construction code, Yingshanling.

More information about the Tang and Song royal construction can be studied from works of landscape paintings concentrating on buildings. Guo Zhongshu 郭忠恕 (? - 977 CE) was a painter who lived in the period towards the end of the Five Dynasties and the beginning of the Song dynasty. His architectural paintings were considered as an accurate reflection of the actual buildings of those times. The scholar Liu Daochun 刘道醇 who lived around 1057 CE (detailed dates of his birth and death are unknown) comments on Guo Zhongshu’s works in his monograph which reviews paintings and painters:

Among painters at the time, Guo Zhongshu has the best skill of depicting actual timber buildings in paintings. In his paintings, the rate of roof curving and the proportion of the facade elements are presented with accurate calculations. These calculations matched what construction artisans used in their construction practices.55

Minghuang-bishugong 明皇避暑宫 (Summer Palace of Emperor Ming) created by Guo Zhongshu was a masterpiece that presents the image of royal buildings during the Tang-Song period [Figure 4.9]. It chooses the summer palace of Emperor Ming, Huaqing Palace (华清宫), as the theme, which was built early in the Tang dynasty and considerably expanded during the reign of Emperor Ming. Emperor Ming, commonly known as the Emperor Xuanzong, was the seventh emperor of the Tang dynasty in China. Albeit credited with bringing Tang China to a pinnacle of culture and power in the first half of his reign, Emperor Ming was criticised for a life of enjoyment and luxury during the latter part of his reign, leading to Tang’s golden age ending in the Anshi Rebellion (755 - 763 CE).

The Huaqing Palace, considered as an architectural representation of the Emperor Ming’s extravagance, was depicted with luxurious and magnificent forms in the painting. To the left side of the painting was a river, and along the river, three isolated one-storey structures were presented one after another, used as viewing

55 Liu Daochun 刘道醇, Shengcaho minghua ping 圣朝名画评, “上折下算, 一斜百随. 咸取砖木诸匠本法, 略不相背.”

100

places for enjoying the scenery. The main part of the palace was positioned to the right of the painting: several building complexes enclosed two aligned courtyards along the central axis. The palatial order starts with a one-level timber structure with walls (see the bottom right of the picture), which defines the entrance to the entire palace. In front of the first courtyard is a T-shaped platform structurally supported by brackets and columns standing on a high foundation. Behind the platform is the entrance to the first courtyard, a one- level structure connected with corridors that extend to shape a rectangular courtyard. Although the painting does not indicate the corridors of the courtyard on the right side, two main buildings along the central axis can be observed. The structure in the centre of the first courtyard is a one-level structure with double eaves, which blocks the first floor of the rear two-level structure. Inserted in the left corridors of the first courtyard is another one-level building that is connected by other corridors to a structure along the river. The second courtyard also starts with a wide platform but encompasses more timber buildings with more sophisticated forms and multiple levels. At the rear of the complex, the painter presented a three-level building whose main structure was encircled by attached corridors on the second floor [Figure 4.10].

Figure 4.10 Part of Minghuang-bishugong created by Guo Zhongshu (National art collection, Osaka, Japan).

The timber structures in this painting presented the typical features of royal buildings. All the palatial structures in this painting are completed with the style of double eaves and show unambiguous layers of

101

structural elements. For the one-level structures, from top to bottom, there are five layers expressed through the appearance of buildings: roofs, eaves brackets, overhanging eaves, columns, and foundations, which completely match the formal features of diange frameworks in the Yingzao-fashi. The multiple-level structures repeat the layers of eaves brackets, overhanging eaves, and columns for creating a new storey. Three roof types of royal construction are demonstrated in this painting: the double-hipped roof, hip-and- gable roof, and crossing ridge roof (十字脊顶). The structures in this painting represent the typical formal characteristics of royal buildings during the Tang-Song period.

Another work from the Song paintings, which offers a noteworthy source to explore the distinction in Song buildings reflecting different political status, is the painting Qingming-shanghe-tu. It was created by the Song dynasty artist Zhang Zeduan (1085 – 1145 CE) and is considered the most renowned work of all Chinese paintings. Both Chinese and Western scholars have studied this painting at length. 56 The masterpiece depicts the daily life of people and the landscape of the capital during the Northern Song. The theme is often said to celebrate the festive spirit and worldly commotion of the Qingming Festival, rather than the holiday’s ceremonial aspects.57 Successive scenes reveal the lifestyle of society from rich to poor as well as different economic activities in rural areas and the city, all of which offer glimpses of the period architecture.

The countryside and the densely populated city are the two main sections in the image, with the river meandering through the entire length. To the right is the rural area of the city. There are crop fields and unhurried rural residents — predominately farmers, goatherds, and pig herders — in bucolic scenery. A country path broadens into a road and joins with the city road. The left half is the urban area, which eventually leads into the city proper within the gates. Many economic activities, such as people loading cargo onto boats, shops, and even a tax office, can be seen in this area. People from all walks of life are depicted: peddlers, jugglers, actors, paupers begging, monks asking for alms, fortune tellers and seers,

56 The important research from Chinese scholars includes Zheng Zhenduo 郑振铎, “Qingming-shanghe-tu de yanjiu” 《清明上河图》〉的研究; Xu Bangda 徐邦达, “Qingming-shanghe-tu de chubu yanjiu” 清明上河图的初步研究. The Western scholars who explored the painting include Whitfield, “Chang Tse-tuan’s ‘Ch’ing- ming shang-ho fu;” Hsingyuan, “Unraveling the Mystery of the Handscroll 'Qingming Shange Tu.”; Johnson, “The Place of ‘Qingming shanghe tu’ in the historical geography of Song dynasty Dongjing.” 57 Both Zheng Zhenduo and Xu Bangda identify the scroll as a festival celebration along the Bian River and date it to the early twelfth century. The studies from Richard Barnhart and Valerie Hanse propose a different date, suggesting the mid-eleventh century. See Barnhart, Three Thousand Years of Chinese Painting, 105. Hansen, Valerie. “The Mystery of the Qingming Scroll and Its Subject: The Case Against Kaifeng,” 169-182.

102

doctors, innkeepers, teachers, millers, metalworkers, carpenters, masons, and official scholars from all ranks. It is widely accepted by scholars that Qingming-shanghe tu reflects actual urban life and architecture at that time, for many of these details are roughly corroborated by Song dynasty writings, principally the Dongjing -menghua-lu 东京梦华录 (Dreams of splendour of the Eastern Capital), which describes many of the same features of life and buildings in the capital.

The construction works of all three types of political status can be visibly observed in Qingming-shanghe- tu. This painting vividly displays the streetscape of the capital city through a wide and diverse variety of timber structures. Architecture is painted at close range to the viewer, and sometimes building interiors are shown. In addition to civil infrastructure, there are urban shops, diners, inns, temples, long-rent hotels, teahouses, private residences, and official buildings varying in grandeur and style, from huts to mansions with grand front and backyards. Among these structures, the tower of the city gate, as a mark of the city where the royal family lived, is a typical timber structure of royal construction. Each construction layer of the tower is apparent. There are two layers of eaves brackets. The first is placed to support the balcony surrounding the four facades of the building that are formed by the layer of the columns and beams with installed windows and doors. The second layer of eaves brackets stands on the beams and heads of columns to support a hip roof, an exclusive roof style of royal buildings according to the Yingshanling [Figure 4.11]. Another building group belonging to royal construction is the temple located outside the city and close to the moat. Unfortunately, only the entrance structure of the temple was depicted; the main buildings of the

Figure 4.11 The tower of the city gate depicted in Qingming-shanghe-tu, by Zhang Zheduan in the Northern Song dynasty (The Palace Museum, Beijing).

103

temple are not demonstrated in the painting. However, eaves brackets used in the entrance structure are still visible signs that mark the political status of the temple [Figure 4.12].

Figure 4.12 The gate structure of a temple depicted in Qingming-shanghe-tu, by Zhang Zheduan in the Northern Song dynasty (The Palace Museum, Beijing).

Eaves brackets could also be detected in an official’s dwelling in the picture called Zhaotaicheng Jia 赵太丞家 (Doctor Zhao’s house), whose owner was an imperial physician with an official rank [Figure 4.13]. The painting only shows a part of the dwelling, and it is unknown where the precise boundary of Doctor Zhao’s dwelling might be. However, the entrance gate of the dwelling and a courtyard beyond the entrance can be easily perceived in the painting. Besides, a clinic as the physician’s workplace positioned adjacent to the entrance, is also a part of the dwelling, which seems to have a link with the courtyard at the rear. The utilisation of eaves brackets in both the entrance gate and the clinic building means that the political status of this dwellings is different from that of other residences and commercial buildings. This dwelling appears to be the only product of government construction in the painting. There are no other officials’ dwellings or government offices found, probably because the streetscape on which the painting focuses are urban areas close to the city gate rather than areas around the city centre where the royal palace and the mansions of imperial high-rank officials are located.

The gate tower, the entrance structure of a temple, and Doctor Zhao’s house present the outward features of official buildings. However, the majority of buildings appearing in this picture are works of non-official construction. A large number of timber structures, standing along the roads (both inside and outside the city gate) and occupying the dominant urban roles, were private residences and commercial buildings. They were commoners’ property and constructed by non-government organised builders, albeit following the official regulations for urban construction. These non-official buildings present the same formal

104

characteristics in terms of roof style, building height, and connections of columns and beams, and most of them have only one floor. However, it is notable that three two-storey non-official buildings, as exceptions, were painted in the picture. A small-scale two-storey building was located in a courtyard of a long-rent hotel. A double pitch roof covers the structure, and the second floor seems to be used as a living room. A man could be seen sitting there through an open window on the side, and the flank of the structure shows a

Figure 4.13 The structures of Doctor Zhao’s house depicted in Qingming-shanghe-tu, by Zhang Zheduan in the Northern Song dynasty (The Palace Museum, Beijing). transverse triangular frame that is formed by a short post and two pole brackets above a beam supported by two columns [Figure 4.14a]. In addition, a fancy restaurant near the city gate tower was depicted as a large- scale two-storey structure with a large internal space. The upstairs floor, where customers could enjoy the city scenery while they had dinner, is an open rectangular space with opening windows installed on all four sides [Figure 4.14b]. Notwithstanding a distinct decorative timber frame at the front, the internal structure of the two-storey building, covered by a hip-and-gable roof, is difficult to access from its outward appearance. Another two-storey structure is a teahouse situated outside the city. Similar to the two-storey building of the long-rent hotel, the side of the building demonstrates a triangular transverse frame [Figure

105

4.14c]. It can be presumed that there are three such frames connected by lintels in a longitudinal direction to form an integrated timber framework supporting the double pitch roof.

The three two-storey structures seem to share the same construction method. Different from the city gate tower that clearly expresses the distinct layers of building components stacked in the vertical direction, the typical construction method of diange frameworks, these non-official buildings more likely adopt the construction method of tingtang, the longitudinal connection of transverse timber frames. Even the numerous one-storey buildings in the painting are seemingly produced by the tingtang construction method, though their transverse frames are much simpler than those recorded in Yingzao-fashi.

Compared to other Song paintings, Qingming-shanghe-tu more explicitly demonstrates the formal features of Song buildings of different political status, and they offer visual evidence which helps to understand the regulations described in Yingshanling. The utility of eaves brackets is a significant difference compared with the products of Song non-official construction and official construction. The paintings also recorded the different architectural works of official construction, royal buildings and government buildings. The city gate tower, as a royal building, presents the basic features of buildings constructed with the vertical construction method, while the formal features of government buildings and non-official buildings, either one-storey or two-storey, indicated that these structures were more likely built by the horizontal construction method. The hip roof was exclusively used in royal buildings, while the hip-and-gable and double pitch roof are common roof forms of both government and non-official buildings.58 Government buildings and non- official buildings share the same construction method, although they are generally non-official buildings which were built in simpler forms. One piece of evidence is that, except for eaves brackets, the other architectural elements of Doctor Zhao’s house, including the double pitch roof, beams and columns, the courtyard, and building scale and height, are identical to that of commoners’ buildings in the image.

58 Yingzao-fashi notes that the combination hip-and-gable roofs, which used to be employed in tingtang structures of government construction and some simple pavillions, started to be used in royal construction in the Song dynasty due to their impressive shape. See Li Jie, Yingzao-fahi, Vol. 5, “今亦用此制为殿阁者, 俗谓之曹殿, 又曰汉殿, 亦曰九脊殿.”

106

c Figure 4.14 Three two-storey non-official buildings depicted in Qingming-shanghe-tu, by Zhang Zheduan in the Northern Song dynasty (The Palace Museum,107 Beijing).

Chapter 5

Royal Construction and Political Symbolism

5.1 Building height and vertical construction

The existing scholarship on Chinese architecture pays little attention to the vertical construction model and building height. The palatial complexes and multiple courtyards, enclosed by large-scale timber structures, connecting walls or corridors, accounted for the highest level of Chinese architectural achievements and remained a prime reference point within Chinese premodern architectural history. It is widely accepted that Chinese buildings, especially those of royal construction, were built with stress on the breadth and less on height, highlighting a heavy platform and a large roof that floated over the base. In comparison, the vertical walls were not well emphasised. “Buildings that were too high and large were considered unsightly, and therefore generally avoided.”1 In contrast to Western architecture, which tends to grow in height and depth, Chinese architecture stresses the visual impact of the width of the buildings, using a sheer horizontal scale to inspire awe in visitors. For example, the halls and palaces in the Forbidden City, have low ceilings when compared to equivalent stately buildings in the West, but their external appearances suggest the all- embracing nature of imperial China. These ideas have found their way into modern Western architecture, for instance, through the work of Jorn Utzon.2

These comments, however, are only applicable for understanding the architecture of the late period of premodern China, especially in the Ming and Qing dynasties (1368 - 1912 CE). Most of the timber structures surviving in China, typically the Forbidden City, were built in that period and normally with one or two storeys. More importantly, the Chinese courtyard, a well-known architectural model of Chinese living which emphasises enclosed plan and building combination rather than structural height, were flourishing and prevalent during the Ming-Qing period. The highest extant timber structure in China is the Sakyamuni Pagoda of Fogong Temple that was built in 1056 CE, during the Khitan-led Liao dynasty, and which has

1 Li, “Chinese geomancy and ancestor worship: A further discussion,” 329. 2 Weston, Utzon : Inspiration, Vision, Architecture, 221.

109

survived several large earthquakes throughout the centuries. Although the well-preserved pagoda is famed for its wooden structure and prodigious height, 67.31 meters, no similar structure can be found elsewhere in China. The limited living exemplars result in a misunderstanding of Chinese architecture: Chinese timber structure was built with an emphasis on horizontality and less on verticality. Chinese architecture and its relationship with politics have been chiefly studied through architectural combinations of Chinese courtyards, palaces, and cities. An emphasis on the order of architectural assemblies and associated spatial sequences in the horizontal direction rather than on building height was deemed by scholars to be a distinguishing characteristic of Chinese architecture throughout the entire premodern time.3

Nevertheless, this viewpoint is, to some extent, challenged in this research. Most extant scholarship on Chinese premodern palaces and politics overlooked the political-symbolic meaning carried by building height in early Chinese history. Beyond seminal exemplars of late premodern China, Chinese architectural historians have scrutinised the evolution of the royal palace complexes, from early and elemental forms to timber structure complexes. The Neolithic period marks the evolution of Chinse inhabitation from pit caves to above-ground structures in the valleys of the Yellow River. The evolution of building in a vertical direction entailed a tradition concerning building height: the more important buildings must be constructed with greater height. That concern established the importance of height in the following Xia, Shang, and Western Zhou dynasties: the important structures of palaces and family temples were often built on rammed- earth foundations, which made them taller than other buildings. With the continuity of this tradition in the subsequent Eastern Zhou dynasty, building height was theoretically a key symbol with which to measure the status and power of its owner, a symbolism which established registration of political rule in early China. The Confucian classic Shangshu, produced around the fifth century BCE, describes a specific guideline regarding royal construction in its chapter Dazhuan: “The king’s tang is as vast as the sky and is nine zhi (unit) high. The duke or marquis’s tang building is seven zhi high, while the viscount or baron’s tang building is five zhi high.”4

This statement indicates that the height of their halls identified the status of nobilities at that time. The taller the hall, the higher the political status of the nobles. This underlying precept made people think more about how to build tall structures. The vertical construction method originated from early construction thinking

3 Pan Guxi, Zhongguo jianzhu shi 中国建筑史, 75. 4 Shangshu, Da zhuan 大传, “天广之堂高九雉, 公侯七雉, 子男五雉.” Zhi is a unit of length approximately 2.5 meters.

110

that emphasized the height of structures. It has been a common practice in the history of human civilization worldwide, that people created high structures to express monumentality. Examples range from the ancient Egyptian pyramids to the modern Eiffel Tower. When people intended to create a tall structure, the most direct method was massing the building materials vertically. A high timber structure was achieved by adding layers of building components or elements. This construction method originated from an early tradition of being concerned about building height and produced a specific building type featured with extraordinary height, tai. This building form became prevalent as a political symbol of royal authority during the Spring and Autumn Period (770 - 476 BCE) and the Warring States Period (475 - 221BCE), and the construction process of tai fully reflected the prototype of the vertical construction model.

Yingzao-fashi has implied that significant palatial buildings in the Song dynasty, such as Dian, Tang, and Ge, were all constructed with the vertical model. The timber framework produced by the vertical construction model in Yingzao-fashi provided royal buildings with flexible internal space and towering external appearances. The three structural layers (columns and beams, bracket sets, and roof rafters) constitute the free-standing framework, not by simply piling up the building elements but by connecting each other with mortise and tenon joints. These connections were inevitably produced in both a vertical and horizontal direction to form an interlocked integrated structure. Such features satisfied the political demands that rulers required for their architectural accommodation. The internal spatial layout of royal buildings produced could be adjusted by the position of internal columns and the length of the columns, while the height of the ceiling determined the spatial volumes. The large and well defined interior space created a sense of solemnity which was required when meeting emperors, while the roof had to be structurally capable of increasing the height of the entire building, forming a lofty symbol of rulers’ authority. In contrast, the bracket sets were structurally treated as a connection between columns and roof rafters only. The historical documents and heritage buildings have proved that not only the Song but also the Tang and subsequent dynasties until the Qing, the last dynasty of imperial China, all built important structures in palaces, all focusing on the vertical model. To explore the political meaning of the vertical construction model, it is necessary to review how the vertical construction model formed in early Chinese history.

5.2 Tai structure and symbolism

“Early Chinese settlement, before houses were created, was in hillside caves where the humid environment had detrimental health effects. Hence, the sacred king created a

111

method of building a house with high foundations to avoid moisture, a sidewall to block the cold wind, and a roof to resist the frost, snow, rain, and dew.”5

This text is a description of Chinese habitation during antiquity in the Chinese classic, Mozi (墨子). It is frequently cited within the research on the origin of Chinese architecture to suggest that caves were the main building form before above-ground houses.6 Moreover, the text indicates that the house above ground was considered a better form of accommodation compared with cave dwellings. A transition of Chinese living habitation during antiquity, from low caves to high above-ground buildings, which seems to have been overlooked by previous studies, was clearly expressed in the Mozi text, although the transition appears singularly associated with the practical resolution of damp and moisture prevention.

Archaeological investigations on Neolithic sites have also revealed the transition from cave to above-ground structures. The valleys of the Yellow River, also named the Central Plain area, are known as the cradle of Chinese Civilization and the political centre of China before the twelfth century. From the discoveries of village sites of Yangshao (ca.7000 - 6000 BCE) and Longshan (ca.4350 - 3950 BCE), distributed around the Central Plain, it is evident that subterranean and semi-subterranean cave shelters were the dominant form of living form in this area.7 Moreover, archaeologist also found the varying number of pit dwellings in other Neolithic sites of China, including Hongshan (ca.3450 - 3950 BCE), Liangzhu (ca.5300 - 4200 BCE), Dawenkou (ca.4300 - 2500 BCE), Daxi (ca.4400 - 3300 BCE), and so forth.8 Their investigations reveal that the above-ground building on a large scale generally appeared at this time as a significant built form devoted to clan chieftains or major public events, 9 suggesting that the corresponding relationship between building height and its importance has been shaped. The taller the building, normally the greater its importance in the building group of clans and tribes in the Neolithic period.

5 Mozi 墨子, Ciguo 辞过, “古之民, 未知为宫室时, 就陵阜而居, 穴而处, 下润湿伤民, 故圣王作为宫室之法曰：宫高足以辟润湿, 边足以圉风寒, 上足以待霜雪雨露.” 6 Liu Xujie 刘叙杰, Zhongguo gudai jianzhushi 中国古代建筑史, Vol.1, 26. 7 The important site remains include Tangquangou (Yanshi, Henan Province), Banpo (Xi’an, Shaanxi Province), and Pingliangtai (Huaiyang, Henan province). See Ibid, 61. 8 Ibid, 26. 9 Ibid, 75.

112

Following the Neolithic period, the Three Dynasties period (ca.2070 - 771 BCE including Xia, Shang, and Western Zhou dynasty), represent the transformation of village-centred clans into urban centres. In these urban centres, the palaces and family temples large in scale and totally above ground, exemplify the high point of the architectural achievements of this era. The archaeological investigations in Henan, Hubei, and Shaanxi provinces have confirmed the profound environmental changes that occurred at this time.10 Some of the earliest palaces remain excavated at the former capital cities, revealing distinct features of palatial buildings. They consisted of a rammed-earth foundation and a timber structure above. Also discovered, were foundations of varying heights, the variety of which could not be explained by practical considerations such as prevention of moisture with the political or symbolic meaning of these physical structures appearing to be attached to their varying height.

Some of the earliest Chinese words also embraced the concept of building height. It is accepted that the initial Chinese characters, especially ancient characters, were developed from pictograms. Some concepts and images in relation to buildings were found in the oracle bone script, the earliest Chinese words so far written in the remains of early Chinese divination practices.11 These divination practices normally utilised the shoulder blades of animals and the shells of tortoises which were firmly identified with the Shang culture (ca.1600 – 1046 BCE). The concept of height or ‘high’ in the earliest Chinese characters was expressed by a building with a foundation. The word (modern Chinese word gao 高), recorded in the oracle-bone script, means “high” or “height”, which shows a clear image of a timber structure built on a high foundation with a window opening.12 There are other words which highlight the relationship between building height and occupant importance. For example, in early China, the family temple, as a container of the ancestral sacrifices, was of great importance. The word (modern Chinese word xiang 亯) meaning family temple, is also an image of a timber structure on a square platform or foundation.13 The original meaning of the word

10 A large number of remains of rammed-earth foundations in the Three Dynasties period had been found in Henan, Hubei and Shaanxi Provinces. An evident trend was that the foundations in that time were increasingly raised as time passed. See Yu Deyuan 于德源, Zhongguo gudai gaotai jianzhu chuxian zhi yuanqi ji yanbian 中国古代高台建筑出现之源起及演变, 1-3. 11 Oracle bone script (Jiaguwen 甲骨文) is the earliest known form of Chinese writing. The form of Chinese characters was used on animal bones or turtle plastrons used in pyromantic divination in the late 2nd millennium BC. Over 50,000 inscribed items found at the Yinxu site, record pyromantic divinations of the last nine kings of the Shang dynasty. See Keightley, Sources of Shang History, 3. 12 Meng Hui 孟慧,“Zhongguo gujianzhu yu guwenzi guanxi yanjiu”中国古建筑与古文字关系研究, 91. 13 Ibid.

113

‘capital’ also appeared as an architectural presence in the oracle-bone script. The modern Chinese word Jing (京) means the political capital of the country, for example, the name of the present capital of China, Beijing

(北京 north capital). In ancient Chinese, Jing also means high or height, recorded as , a structure built on a much higher foundation with a supporting element.14

After the initial transition from caves to above-ground structures in the Neolithic period, Chinese habitation established a tradition of relating building height to its importance. Significant buildings, including the palace hall and family temple, started to increase in height by raising the rammed-earth foundation. Kaogongji 考工记 (Records of Artificers), as the earliest surviving compilation of texts on handicraft technology in China, is a chapter of the Confucian classic Zhou Li 周礼 (Rites of Zhou). The text in Kaogongji proved that the significant buildings in the Three Dynasties period presented increasing height.15 Following this trend, building height became a key element in gauging the importance of architecture. Accordingly, tai, a specific building type characterized by a strikingly high foundation, became prevalent as a symbolic political structure in the Spring and Autumn Period (770 - 476 BCE) and the Warring States Period (475 - 221BCE).

Tai 台 (terrace), originally referred to the high rammed-earth foundation appearing as a terrace supporting the timber structure called xie 榭 (pavilion). Erya 尔雅, the oldest Chinese dictionary known, offered an explanation of the words tai and xie in its chapter Shigong 释宫 (Explain Palaces): “Du 阇 (terrace above city gate) also called tai 台(terrace normally by rammed-earth), and the timber structure attached to Du called xie 榭 (pavilion).” 16 The scholear of the Qing dynasty, Hao Yixing 郝懿行 presented an interpretation of that explanation: “Du means tai. Xie means a timber structure set up above the terrace, this structure being named xie.”17 Commonly, Tai was used as a short name for the combination and joined with other words to identify the structure like Lu-tai 鹿台 (Deer Terrace). That may be because a high terrace was striking and the most visible feature of the whole structure.

14 Ibid. 15 Zhou Li 周礼, Zhouguan 周官 Kaogongji 考工记, “夏后氏世室, 堂修二七, 广四修一…. 殷人重屋, 堂修七寻, 堂崇三尺, 四阿重屋. 周人明堂, 度九尺之筵, 东西九筵, 南北七筵, 堂崇一筵.” 16 Guo Pu 郭璞, Erya zhushu 尔雅注疏, edited by Li Xueqing 李学勤, 127.. 17 Hao Yixing 郝懿行, Erya yishu 尔雅义疏 , 66.

114

The original form of this building type is known through archaeological and literary sources. For example, a pattern on a goblet of the early Warring States Period demonstrates a full image of early tai [Figure 5.1]. In this image, the terrace was supported by columns and accessed through steps attached to the columns on each side. The timber structure above the terrace consists of two parallel rows of columns. These columns support a beam and a flat roof with deep eaves attached. The whole building appears located in a garden with many plants and animals.

Figure 5.1 Patterns on a goblet of the early Warring States Period (Shanghai Museum, Shanghai).

The earliest well-known tai recorded in Chinese literature is the Lu-tai of the late Shang dynasty. It was built by Zhou, the last King of the Shang dynasty, for entertainment activities and storing treasures. Relevant description can be found in the chapter Wucheng 武成 of the Confucian classic Shangshu. In an exaggerated description from the Tang dynasty scholar, Kong Yingda 孔颖达 (574 - 648 CE), Lu-tai was one thousand chi high.18 In another early mention of tai, the tai structure built by the Wen King of Zhou (1,152 – 1,056 BCE) for astronomical observation was named Ling-tai 灵台 (Spirit Terrace), which was recorded in both the oldest existing collection of Chinese poetry, Shijing 诗经 (Classic of Poetry), and the Confucian classic Mengzi 孟子. These two tai buildings can be recognized from limited ancient texts, but there are no remains of their existence.

18 The describtion from Kong Yingda 孔颖达 was recorded in the chapter Ci She 刺奢 of the book Xinxu 新序 (New Preface). See Liu Xinag 刘向, Xinxu, 194.

115

Despite the elemental simplicity of the early tai structural form, it embraced a wide variety of functions such as entertainment, banqueting, retailing, astronomical observations, and military conferences. When it came to the East Zhou dynasty (770 - 256 BCE), with the rise of feudal states, the kings started to build much more magnificent palaces than earlier and used tai to name the whole palace complex. An article from a historical record, Guoyu 国语 (Discourses of States), described the following example. King Ling of Chu State (? - 529 BCE) built a grand palace, Zhanghua-tai 章华台. When the construction was completed, he invited his minister Wu Ju 伍举 to climb up and celebrate the new palace. The king believed that his minister would give great praise to such a beautiful palace; he proudly asked Wu Ju: “Is the tai beautiful?”. But unexpectedly, Wu Ju sharply criticised the construction of the palace, which he supposed was a large financial burden for the state. In order to support the suggestion that the king should cultivate virtue and bring happiness to his subjects, rather than increasing the amount of forced labour needed for large-scale construction, Wu Ju described the function of the Paoju-tai 匏居台 which the King Zhuan (King Ling’s father) built: the height of the terrace only needed to satisfy the requirements of observing the cloud and air for auspicious omens, and the area of the timber structure only needed to satisfy the requirement for banquet space. Later, Wu Ju also mentioned the original functions of the tai building built by primitive kings: “Xie was built for discussing the military situation, and tai was built for looking at the clouds and air for auspicious omens. Thus, the height of the tai should just be adequate to meet the needs of looking at the clouds and atmosphere, and the area of the xie should just be sufficient to meet the military’s requirements for meetings and gatherings.”19

The semantic discrepancy between the tai (terrace) and gong (palace) was rather ambiguous in the East Zhou dynasty. Tai and gong were often used as synonyms when appearing in literary texts. An example can be found in Zuo zhuan 左传 (The Commentary of Zuo). Early in the sixth year of the Wen king’s reign in the Lu State, a terrible omen appeared when seven snakes ran out of the Quan-gong 泉宫 (Spring Palace) and into parts of the state capital. In August of that year, Lu Wengong’s mother living in the Quan Gong died, and her death was thought to be a result of the omen. Consequently, the king gave orders to demolish the Quan-tai 泉台 (Spring Terrace). Here Quan-tai is a synonym for Quan-gong.20

19 Guo Yu 国语, Wuju lun taimei er chudai 伍举论台美而楚殆, “故先王之为台榭也, 榭不过讲军实, 台不过望氛祥. 故榭度于大卒之居, 台度于临观之高.” 20 Zuo zhuan 左传, Wengong shiliu nian 文公十六年.

116

The reason why tai became a general name for palaces was unknown. An explanation might be that the palatial buildings in the East Zhou dynasty, as well as the early tai structure, all stood on high rammed- earth terraces, although some were more complicated and large-scale. The archaeological discoveries offered clear evidence. At an archaeological site of the Xianyang Palace, the palace of the Qin state remains of clay-timber complexes with large-scale earthen foundations were excavated.21 Some scholar attempted to reconstruct the complex structure based on their understanding of the remains. According to the reconstruction by Yang Hongxun 杨鸿勋, the irregular shape of the rammed-earth foundation, covering an area of sixty by forty-five meters, allowed more space on each level. The uneven height of the terrace not only suited the complex structural form but also provided the inside wall against the rammed-earth with protection. The rammed-earth foundation was concealed behind the walls and floors of ornate rooms and galleries, by which the appearance of a multi-level structure was presented. The imperial subjects in the capital city would undoubtedly have had the opportunity to gaze in awe at the grand scale and the splendid appearance of the palace, even though they knew nothing about its quality inside.

A typical tai structure can also be studied on archaeological relics of artefacts manufactured in the Warring States Period. A scrap of a bronze basin found in Shanxi province, for example, provides an image of

21 Qin Xianyang kaogu gongzuozhan 秦咸阳考古工作站, “Qindu Xianyang diyihao gongdian jianzhu yizhi jianbao” 秦都咸阳第一号宫殿建筑遗址简报, 12.

117

advanced tai buildings with two levels. A clear ramp to the second floor can be seen in this pattern, which indicates that the first floor’s structure was built against the terrace that did not support the second-floor structure [Figure 5.3]. Images of the two-storey tai structure could also be detected on the decorative patterns of two bronze kettles stored in the Beijing Palace Museum and Chengdu Bahutan [Figure 5.4]. However, these patterns fail to offer any information on the construction method of tai structures.

Figure 5.3 Patterns on a scrap of a bronze basin Figure 5.4 Patterns on a bronze kettle of of the Warring States Period (Yang Hongxun 杨 the Warring States Period (Yang 鸿勋, Jianzhuxue kaogu lunwenji 建筑学考古论 Hongxun 杨鸿勋, Jianzhuxue kaogu 文集, 126). lunwenji 建筑学考古论文集, 126).

The scholar Qi Yingtao 齐英涛 suggests a detailed explanation of the construction process of tai, based on an archaeological investigation.22 First, builders dug down to make a groove in the ground. They then piled up plain solid material in the groove and tamped it into a terrace which could be more than ten meters above the ground. Builders continued to build timber structures on the terrace. The columns of the structures supporting the beams were inserted into the terrace, and roof frames positioned above the beams were shortened layer-by-layer, thus forming a pitched roof. However, Qi Yingtao also suggested that the structures attached to the terrace face were formed by digging down from the terrace above, excavating out room space, and then placing pilaster into the tamped wall. This explanation suggests a tedious and laborious building process as builders needed to dismantle the well-tamped terrace they had already finished. A more reasonable explanation could be setting up the attached structures against the terrace that was piled up in a pre-designed shape, rather than digging down from the terrace to set up the structures. Thus, the building

22 Qi Yingtao 齐英涛, “Zhongguo zaoqi jujiegou jianzhu de shidai tezheng” 中国早期木结构建筑的时代特征, 67.

118

process of the terrace and the main timber structure above shows the vertical construction model, forming structures by the massing of building components at various levels.

Climatic and geographical conditions provided tai structures with a unique built environment and material support. The valleys of the Yellow River had a semi-arid climate with fertile soil in ancient times. In early China, people only had primitive tools and little knowledge of building techniques, especially for a timber structure. Thus, they invented new techniques, hangtu (夯土 rammed-earth), which made it possible to build multi-storey buildings. As a building system mixed with clay and timber, tai was a transitional form of Chinese built form between the primitive cave and completely wooden pavilions of the Central Plain of China. With the invention of the rammed earth, the Chinese in the Shang and Zhou period were able to build strikingly high edifices even though they could not yet erect a tall timber structure supported solely by columns and beams. The large-scale rammed-earth terrace could be technically achieved by using a substantial amount of labour which the state made available. Tai, featured an extraordinarily high terrace, which was adopted by Chinese rulers as the primary form of palace buildings and constructed in large numbers around the first millennium BCE. For all palace structures at that time built with rammed-earth foundations, tai became the general name for palace complexes built with complicated combinations and large scale. These tai palaces were vivid symbols of political authority and power, and each ruler of the contemporary states was full of enthusiasm about the tai mode of construction.

There is no doubt that significant works of royal construction were symbols of state rulers’ authority, but how the symbolism was expressed and how the other classes of the empire received and understood such symbolism through buildings, need to be explored. Although attaching importance to building height had been formed in the Neolithic period of China, the architectural works symbolising political authority were built in relatively large numbers during the Eastern Zhou (770 - 221 BCE) period and the Qin dynasty (221 - 207 BCE). Many products of royal construction, designed to reflect the rulers’ political philosophy, were recorded in the literature, not about their forms, but about their symbolic meaning. Even though the physical presence of structures had disappeared, the symbolic meanings were frequently reviewed and studied by official-scholars in successive dynasties of premodern China, especially the Tang-Song period.

The Eastern Zhou dynasty was an era of great changes. During this time, the old social institution and political orders established by the Western Zhou dynasty gradually collapsed, and new ones were sought by the rulers of the states. To avoid being annexed by other states, every state king had to carry out reforms. Hence, a wide discussion of society and proposed solutions to address social problems induced an explosion

119

of thought and culture. Many people had their attitudes and opinions about the changes taking place in society. They developed their doctrines and formed different schools, including Confucianism introduced by Confucius, Daoism by Lao Zi, Mohism initiated by Mo Zi, and Legalism started by Han Feizi. All these schools together laid the intellectual foundation for subsequent Chinese civilisation. Chinese rulers, in that glorious time, also started to search for their ideal social institution and corresponding cultural system to defend their political sovereignty. Several powerful feudal kings contended for hegemony to fulfil their political ambition and ideals. Tai was widely employed in palace construction during that period. By increasing the height of specific tai buildings, especially palace gates and halls, the ruling classes erected an architectural image whose political symbols were understood by viewers who shared the symbolic meaning as tacit knowledge.

The discourse, to a large extent, simplified the symbolic meaning of royal construction at that time, by treating it as a representation of the wealth and lavish life of the ruling. Some contemporary officials and scholars agreed with that point of view and criticised the construction of magnificent palaces, as Wu Ju did, mentioned above. However, the rulers also considered the tai as an unrivalled declaration of supremacy, which was significant for the rulers who had proclaimed their power and hoped to strengthen it. Take Zhanghua-tai 章华台 as an example. When Ling King of Chu (楚灵王) completed the palace’s construction in 535 BCE., he expected that other feudatory kings could come to celebrate and thus to admire his dominance. However, according to the historical records, only the king of Lu State attended and only because of military and political pressure from Chu State. 23 Other state kings explicitly refused to acknowledge a declaration of hegemony marked by the construction of a magnificent tai.

In contrast, another story recorded in Zhanguoce reflected a clear symbol of hegemony using tai. Benefiting from a series of reforms, Qin State gradually became the most powerful region in the late Warring States Period. After Qin claimed hegemony in the west (Qin was located to the west of other states), the remaining six states constantly felt the threat from the powerful Qin and wished to unite to defend themselves. Su Qin 苏秦, an official of Zhao State, was designated by his king to help the six states form an alliance. When arriving in Chu State, in order to persuade the Wei King of Chu to agree with his alliance suggestion, Su Qin first praised the powerfulness of the Chu state and the wisdom of the King that no other state or king could transcend. Then Qin stated: “however, now if the Chu State intends to face west and submit itself to

23Zuo zhuan 左传, Zhaogong qinian 昭公七年.

120

the rule of Qin, all of the other states have to face west and worship Qin from the bottom of the Zhang- tai.”24 Here the palace of Zhang-tai had been an accepted symbol of the Qin State and its hegemony. So, it is interesting that since early times, people did not admire the declaration of power marked by the construction of a tai, but once other states had widely accepted the hegemony of a state, its palace tai was treated as a universally recognised symbol of its domination.

Works of royal construction were not merely the symbols of state dominance. Rulers’ desire for talent was also embodied by the construction of particular tai structures. In the Eastern Zhou period, the feudatory kings struggling to contend for hegemony were desperate for talented people that could practice their political doctrines or create new doctrines to help the state thrive. Talent was a critical resource for which the feudal states vied. It was common at that time that people who were well-known for their statecraft like Su Qin, could visit any state and find a suitable employer, even in an enemy state, if the ruler of the state were willing to accept their political beliefs. A well-known literary allusion created in this period is Chucai- jinyong 楚才晋用, which refers to the fact that the talented officials employed in Chu State mostly came from the Jin state.

Some tai buildings became a means to attract people to come to assist the rulers of the feudal states. A representation of such a structure is Huangjin-tai 黄金台(Gold Terrace) constructed by the Zhao King of Yan State (335 - 279 BCE). Zhanguoce offered the earliest description of Huangjin-tai with a vivid story. When Yanzhao Wang planned to recruit talent to assist him, he asked his minister Guo Wei 郭隗 a question about who he should visit first. Before answering the question, Guo Wei told the Zhao King a story of spending a thousand pieces of gold to buy bones.

Your subject (Guo Wei) learned that an ancient king wanted to purchase a swift horse with a thousand pieces of gold. He sought the horse for three years but still did not find it. An official in charge of palace cleaning said to the king ‘Please let me make that purchase.’ So the king agrees to appoint him to fulfil the task. Three months after, the official found a swift horse, but unfortunately, the horse died. Hence, he spent five hundred pieces of gold on buying the horse head and bringing it to the king. The king

24 Zhanguoce 战国策, Suqin wei zhaohezong shui chuweiwang 苏秦为赵合从说楚威王, “今乃欲西面而事秦, 则诸侯莫南面而朝于章台之下矣.”

121

was enraged: ‘I asked you to purchase a horse alive, not to buy a dead horse and to waste five hundred pieces of gold.’ The official answered: ‘ The dead horse cost five hundred pieces of gold, not to mention the price of a living horse. Based on this case, people would believe that my lord can afford the cost of a swift horse, so the swift horse must come soon.’ As expected, after less than one year, three swift horses were brought to the King by intending vendors.25

Then, Guo Wei further persuaded the Zhao King: “If my lord genuinely hopes to recruit talent, please start with me. If I can be appointed, the people will know that there are talented people who are more capable and virtuous than me, can certainly be appointed.” After that, the Zhao King built a gong for Guo Wei and consulted the state’s affairs with him. As predicted, people, including Yue Yi from Wei State, Zou Yan from Qi State, and Ju Xin from Zhao State, competed to work for Yan State.

However, symbolic meaning was not transmitted by the physical structure itself. Although the name of the palace built for Guo Wei failed to be recorded in the Zhanguoce text, it was identified as Huangjin-tai and mentioned in a large number of poems of subsequent dynasties. The concept of Huangjin-tai first appeared in the poetry of the scholar Bao Mingyuan 鲍明远 (415 - 470 CE), Fanggexing 放歌行 (Walking with Sing): “The king not only gave rewards of jade to the skilled employees but also built Huangjin-tai for them.”26 Following Bao Mingyuan, some famous poets in the Tang dynasty, including Li Bai 李白, Liu Zongyuan 柳宗元, and Li Shangying 李商隐, frequently mentioned Huangjin-tai to evoke memories of the palace built by the Zhao King of Yan State. By this means, they expressed their desire for the sagacious ruler who could employ them and help them fulfil their political ambitions.27 Even the emperor of Qing dynasty, Kangxi 康熙 (1654 - 1722 CE), considered as one of the greatest emperors of premodern China, also wrote a poem titled Huangjin tai Huaigu 黄金台怀古 (Nostalgia of Huangjin-tai) to cherish that allusion and express his

25 Ibid, 919. 26 Bo Mingyuan 鲍明远 (415 – 470 CE), Fanggexing 放歌行, “岂伊白壁赐, 将起黄金台.” 27 Li Bai 李白 (701 – 762 CE), Xinglunan 行路难, “昭王白骨萦蔓草，谁人更扫黄金台？” ; Liu Zongyuan 柳宗元 (773 – 819 CE), Yongshi 咏史, “燕有黄金台, 远致望诸君.” ; Li Shangying 李商隐 (813 – 858 CE), Oucheng zhuanyun qishierju zeng sitongshe 偶成转韵七十二句赠四同舍, “此时闻有燕昭台, 挺身东望心眼开.”

122

desire for employees as accomplished as the Zhao King’s staff.28 Huangjin-tai, as a name of the palace built for Guo Wei, was never mentioned in the literature before Fanggexing. This name probably had not been created when the physical structures still survived. It was even uncertain if Bao Mingyuan was the creator of this literary sign. However, the close association was established between the building name and the allusion of spending a thousand pieces of gold to buy the bones. With the incessant review of Huangjin-tai by literature in premodern Chinese history, this architectural concept had become an accepted symbol of rulers’ modesty and their desire for the talented people in Chinese culture.

Another architectural expression of symbolic meaning similar to Huangjin tai, was Wei-que 魏阙. In the Eastern Zhou period, que 阙 was a kind of specific building that was constructed, normally in pairs, as the palace gate to identify the palace. Wei-que means extremely high que. In the typical que form, each of the pair of structures consisted of a particularly high rammed-earth terrace, and a timber pavilion above, as far as can be understood by the images painted in the antiques discovered by archaeologists. The original function of que used to be for military vigilance, but it gradually became the vehicle for conveying the political ideas of rulers. Over Chinese imperial history, a regulation which never changed was that civilians were on no occasion allowed to enter the palaces built for emperors or kings freely. In this case, a pair of que buildings standing at the entrance of the palace with extraordinary height offered a symbolic image of the palace for the civilians who could not access it.

Que, nevertheless, expresses a more complicated symbolic meaning with its attachments. Due to its towering image, the rulers in Eastern Zhou dynasty frequently selected que as the structure to display the laws and orders of the imperial court by which they could achieve the aim of managing the civilians directly. Compared to the symbol of abstract power and status, the supreme authority, expressed by laws and orders, were more explicitly perceived and understood by the civilians when they looked up and concentrated on the extremely high building forming the gate of the palace. The rulers and managers of states, in fact, never failed to stress the construction of que. A typical example was the que of Xianyang Palace of Qin State built by Gongsun Yang, who, as mentioned in Chapter 3, was a representative of Legalism, a school of thought in Chinese philosophy. He advocated Legalism ideas to secure political reform in Qin state, well-known as the Shangyang Reform, which promoted the state’s strength rapidly and laid an institutional foundation for Shihuangdi of the Qin to unify the whole of China. In 351 BCE, Gongsun Yang was appointed to manage

28 Emperor Kangxi 康熙, Huangjin tai huaigu 黄金台怀古, “昭王礼贤士,筑馆黄金台.矫矫昌国君,奋袂起尘埃.市骏固有术,贵在先龙媒.但得一士贤,可以收群材.”

123

the construction of the new capital of the Qin state, Xian Yang. According to the records of Shiji, when he built the new palace, Gongsun Yang paid much attention to the erection of the towering Wei-que structure as the gate of the palace. He hung strips of cloth recording decree on the high structure and strongly supported the que’s function of displaying his reform policies and orders,29 on the basis that civilians watching the que could perceive the gravity of the decree through the extreme height of the structure. For civilians, que was the visible part of the palace and a symbol of the king’s authority who lived inside.

The transmission of the symbolic meaning of the Wei-que buildings to the citizenry also went well beyond its physical structure and to the collaboration between the talented scholar and rulers in literature. Similar to Huangjin-tai, the political-symbolic meaning of Wei-que was handed down by the continuous review of the historical literature of subsequent dynasties. In contrast to the symbolic meaning of Huangjin-tai, rulers’ modesty and their desire for talents, Wei-que expressed scholars’ wish to participate in political affairs. Weique-xin 魏阙心 (the mind of Wei-que) first arose in Zhuangzi-jishi 庄子集释 (notes on Zhuangzi): “The physical body of scholars can stay anywhere in the state, but their minds are always at the foot of the Wei- que” 30, which reflected their aspirations to devote themselves to the imperial court and serve the governance of the state. The scholar of the Eastern Han dynasty, Gao You 高诱 presented a note on the text of the Zhuangzi-jishi:

Wei-que, also called Xiang-que 象阙, is the structure to hang the cloth showing the state decrees for ten days. The structure is really high, so it is named Wei-que. It is said that no matter where the physical body of talented scholars is, their minds are always concerned with the royal authority, thus placing their minds at the foot of the Son of Heaven’s Wei-que.31

Here, the height of Wei-que enabled it to be a symbol of the royal court, an ideal political arena where the talented could apply their intelligence and realise the value of their life. The Weique-xin was described as

29 Sima Qian 司马迁, Shiji 史记, Liezhuan diba 列传第八, Shangjun gongsun yang 商君公孙鞅, “于是以鞅为大良造…居三年，作为筑冀阙宫廷于咸阳，秦自雍徒都之.” 30 Guo Qingfan 郭庆藩, Zhuangzi jishi 庄子集释, “身在江海之上，心居乎魏阙之下.” 31 Gao You 高诱, Lushi Chunqiu zhu 吕氏春秋注, “魏阙，象魏也，悬教象之法，浃日而收之，魏魏高大，故曰魏阙. 言身虽在江海之上，心存王室，故在天子门阙之下也.”

124

an icon to express the political ambition of scholars by several poets of the Tang and Song dynasties in their poems, such as Meng Haoran 孟浩然, Yuan Zhen 元稹, and Fan Chengda 范成大.32 Although the que had been rarely built as a structure of royal palaces from the Tang dynasty forward, the Weique-xin was widely understood and accepted as a political symbol by emperors and scholar-officials throughout premodern China.

There is a unique phenomenon in Chinese imperial history: the political-symbolic meaning, initially attached to physical structures, was finally transformed into specific linguistic symbols created by historical records and frequently reviewed in the literature. Huangjin-tai, Wei-que, and Epang Palace are representatives of architectural works that survive in Chinese literature. They were repeatedly studied by the scholar-officials who employed symbolic architectural meaning to establish certain communication with the rulers, thus expressing their political ambitions, especially in the Tang-Song period. Chinese literature made the symbolism of royal construction non-physical, becoming a cultural icon that was understood by the Chinese, not only scholar-officials but also commoners, consciously or unconsciously. People accepted the political symbolism of royal construction, even if they had never seen the real structure. Consequently, the architectural symbolism produced a direct link between the rulers and their subjects. It was its nonphysical existence and expression that created the political symbolism which continuously served the monarchy’s authority in premodern China.

5.3 Dian: the modest expression of political symbolism

The Chinese character dian 殿 appeared much later than tai and gong. The literature Shuowen-gubenkao 说文古本考 (The Study of Ancient Texts), compiled by the Qing scholar Shen Tao 沈涛 (1792 - 1855 CE), offered a simple explanation of dian. He called it high Tang, but this explanation does not help understand the nature of dian. In premodern Chinese history, dian was used as an exclusive name for the important halls of palaces and monasteries, including halls functioning for court meetings, ceremonies, religious worship, banquets, entertainment, and even royal family members’ daily living. Thus, the dian structures were

32 Meng Haoran 孟浩然 (689 - 740), Fanzhou jing huhai 泛舟经湖海, “观涛壮枚发，吊屈痛沉湘. 魏阙心常在，金门诏不忘.”; Fan Chengda 范成大 (1126 - 1193), Song zhangzhenfu zhongshu fengci guishu 送张真甫中书奉祠归蜀, “一封朝奏钧天梦, 万里江行魏阙心.”; Yuan Zhen 元稹 (779 - 831), Chouyou feng huajiu shuhuai shier yun 酬友封话旧叙怀十二韵, “魏阙何由到, 荆州且共依.”

125

consistently understood by Chinese people as an architectural symbol of the monarchy and built with outstanding visual appeal.

Dian became the core building type of royal construction from the Qin dynasty onwards. When Shihuangdi of the Qin unified China in 221 BCE, identifying his unprecedented power and status was one of his first considerations. The old Xianyang Palaces of Qin were not spacious enough for the ambitious Shihuangdi and many activities of his court. So, in 212 BCE, he built an audience hall, called Qian-dian 前殿 (Front Hall), as the main hall of the new palace, Epang Palace (阿房宫), to the south of the Wei River in the capital Xian Yang.

Archaeological surveys have shown the area of Epang Palace to be about 1,400 meters east to west and 450 meters north to south. These dimensions are close to those described in Guanzhongji 关中记 (Records of Guanzhong Area) —— perhaps because the local record was written significantly later. The Qian-dian was presumably much more than 10 meters high. Surrounding this were elevated pathways said to provide a passage from the lower story of Epang Palace to the mountains to the south. According to the description by Sima Qian in Shiji: “The summit of the Southern Mountains was designated as the gate of the palace.”33 Equally impressive was the elevated passageway that crossed over the Wei River to connect Epang Palace with the capital Xianyang. This was an imitation of a heavenly corridor described in Shiji that led from the Heavenly Apexstar across the Milky Way to the Royal Chamber Star. Guangzhonji also states: “The hall of Epang Palace was a thousand bu (1,350 meters) east to west and three hundred bu (about 400 meters) north to south. Ten thousand men could be entertained there.”34

Epang Palace is one of the palaces famed for its literature work. Albeit honoured as “ the best of all palaces”, the construction of Epang Palace was never finished. According to Shiji, the dimensions of the Qian-dian of Epang Palace constituted 693 meters long by 116.5 meters wide, and the rammed-earth foundation platform measures 1,320 meters east to west, 420 meters north to south, and 8 meters in height.35 In addition, three ancient documents describe the geography of the Guanzhong area: Sanfu-huangtu 三辅黄图 (Yellow

33 Sima Qian, Shiji 史记, “表南山之巅以为阙.” 34 Pan Yue 潘岳 (247 - 300), Guanzhongji 关中记, “阿房殿在长安西南二十里, 殿东西千步, 南北三百步, 庭中受十万人.” 35 Sima Qian, Shiji, “先作前殿阿房, 东西五百步, 南北五十丈, 上可以坐万人, 下可以建五丈旗.”

126

Map of the Sanpu Area); Sanfu-jiushi 三辅旧事 (Old Stories of the Sanpu Area); and Guanzhongji also present the introduction and general dimensions of the Qian-dian of the Epang Palace.

The most well-known literary work focusing on Epang Palace is Epanggong-fu 阿房宫赋 (Rhapsody on Epang Palace). Considered as a masterpiece, Epanggong-fu is widely famous and praised in Chinese history, not only for its rhetoric and beautiful writing but also for its warning effect on the rulers of successive dynasties. The author of the Epanggong-fu was Du Mu 杜牧 (803 - 852 CE ) who was a leading Chinese poet of the late Tang dynasty. Du Mu created Epanggong-fu in 825 CE when he was only twenty-three years old. At that time, the powerful Tang Empire had gone into decline. Similar to rulers at the final stage of any other dynasties in Chinese history, the contemporaneous imperial ruler Emperor Muzong (795 - 824 CE) 唐穆宗 and later Emperor Jingzong 唐敬宗 (809 - 826 CE) were all excessively indulgent in luxuries and pleasures and favoured the extravagant construction of temporary palaces. They rarely held regular court meetings, and the ministers obtained few opportunities to meet their emperor. 36 Du Mu was most discontented and disillusioned with the contemporary rulers. As he mentioned, “Many luxurious construction works have been launched in the Baoli period (825 - 827 CE), and the emperor indulges in women’s charms. So, I write Epanggong-fu.”37 By citing the historical literature, his article indeed made a direct criticism of the Tang rulers.

Epanggong-fu defined Epang Palace as a symbol of the Qin rule. At the outset of the article, Du Mu suggested that the raw material used to construct Epang Palace was trees from the Shu Mountain (蜀山) in Southeast China, the largest table mountain in the world. The enormous consumption of timber deforested the mountain. He then vividly described the grandiosity and magnificence of Epang Palace with exaggeration, albeit without presenting any details. For instance, to emphasise the high density of buildings in the Epang Palace, he noted: “The distance between two high pavilions is only five paces long, while that between two towers is merely ten paces long.”38 The second half of the article argued that the palace posed a huge burden on the people of the Qin dynasty, which directly led to the fall of the Qin Empire. Du Mu severely criticised the luxuriousness of Epang Palace and accused the Shihuangdi of being an autocrat

36 Sima Guang 司马光, Zizhi tongjian 资治通鉴, vol. 243. 37 Du Mu 杜牧 (803 - 852), Shangzhiji wenzhang qi 上知己文章启, “宝历大起宫室, 广声色, 故作《阿房宫赋》.” 38 Du Mu, Epangong-fu 阿房宫赋, “五步一楼十步一阁.”

127

who made people indignant but who dared not speak up.39 As a result, the entire Epang Palace complex was finally burned into pieces by the Overlord of Western Chu, Xiang Yu 项羽. At the end of Epanggong-fu, Du Mu further explored the reasons why the Qin dynasty was overthrown in a very short time, pointing out that only benevolent and austere rulers seemed able to achieve long-term rule.

Apparently, his article intended to persuade the contemporaneous Tang rulers to learn a lesson from their Qin predecessors. However, a striking fact which has been proved by archaeological discoveries is that the construction of Epang Palace was never finished. Even for the front hall, only its foundation was built. Archaeologists who have spent two years studying the ruins of Epang Palace have concluded that it was never completed, and the statement of the “Palace Fire” caused by Xiang Yu is false. Epang Palace was built during the Qin Dynasty, but it turns out that the builders did not progress further than the front hall foundation. There is no evidence that other parts of it were destroyed. Epanggong-fu claims that Xiang Yu, a nobleman attempting to overthrow the authority of Qin, set Epang Palace on fire. Since this cannot be the case, archaeologists have suggested the palace Xiang Yu destroyed was, in fact, the Xianyang Palace. 40

Dian became a common name for important halls of royal palaces from the Han dynasty (206 BCE - 220 CE). Han rulers built two main royal palaces, Changle Palace and Weiyang Palace. Both of their main halls were named Qian-dian. The construction of the Changle Palace was begun in 202 BCE on the ruins of the former Qin detached palace, Xingle Palace. Records show that it had a Qian-Dian for large public events and a back hall for residences, in keeping with the ideal layout proposed in the Zhouli 周礼(Rituals of Zhou), but the height of the Qian-dian is unknown. The Weiyang Palace included many Dian structures, for instance, Linghua-dian 临华殿 for emperors’ living and Changxin-dian 长信殿 and Changqiu-dian 长秋殿 for the queen and maids’ living.

In 198 BCE, the court was moved west to Weiyang Palace, making it the political centre of the West Han dynasty, and Changlegong became the residence of the empress dowager. Although slightly smaller than Changle Palace, Weiyang Palace’s buildings were far grander. There are forty or more halls and about one

39 Ibid, “使天下之人, 不敢言而敢怒. 独夫之心, 日益骄固.” 40 Zhongguo shehuikexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo 中国社会科学院考古研究所, Xi’anshi wenwu baohu kaogu yanjiuyuan西安市文物保护考古研究院, and Xi’anshi Qin Epanggong yizhi baoguansuo西安市秦阿房宫遗址保管所, “Epanggong qiandi yizhi de kaogu kantan yu fajue” 阿房宫前殿遗址的考古勘探与发掘, 205-236.

128

hundred residential structures. Among them was a centrally located pounded-earth foundation about 200 meters by 350 meters, and 15 meters high. Believed to have been the Qian-Dian of the complex, it was situated alongside Longshou Plain. According to the statement of Sanfpuhuangtu, the height of the Qian- dian of Weiyang Palace reached 80 meters,41 a striking height which must be one of its distinguishing features. The other Dian structures of Changle Palace include Chengming-dian 承明殿, Wuan-dian 武安殿, Shoucheng-dian 寿成殿, Wansui-dian 万岁殿, and Feiyu-dian 飞羽殿.

After the Han dynasty, the height of the Dian structure was gradually reduced in royal construction. The highest structure in the palace of the Wei dynasty (213 - 266 CE) was around 40 meters.42 Tang was one of the most powerful dynasties, but the main halls of the Tang palaces were not particularly high. Within a year of the founding of the two capital cities of the Sui dynasty (581 - 619 CE, the dynasty before Tang), a palace city was completed at each capital. The complex at Daxing was named Daxing Palace, and that at Luoyang was called Ziwei Palace. Although the names were changed, to Taiji Palace and Changchun Palace, respectively, both sites continued to be used after the establishment of the Tang dynasty. The Qianyang-dian 乾阳殿 was the most massive timber structure of the Taiji Palace with thirteen bays and 170 chi (47 meters), which was used for court meetings and significant events involving the royal family.

In addition, the Tang built two new palace complexes at Chang’an. In 662 CE, Daming Palace was constructed by the third Tang emperor, Gaozong, adjacent to Chang’an but northeast of the outer city in former parkland. Later, Emperor Xuanzong built the Xingqing Palace complex inside the Longqing ward in 714 CE. Daming Palace, or the Palace of Great Light, was situated northeast of the palace city Chang’an, outside its outer wall. It can be seen as a four-part complex. Southernmost, just beyond the entry to the complex across a waterway, lay a square, 500 meters on each side. At the north end of the square, rising 15 meters from ground level, was the first and main hall, Hanyuan-dian 含元殿, one of the most well-known Chinese palatial buildings. According to the size of the foundation remains, and clues from the historical literature, the main body of the Hanyuan-dian may have reached 24 meters in height. Even with the foundation, the whole structure was only 39 meters high [Figure 5.5].

41 Sanfu huangtu 三辅黄图, “前殿 30 丈.”, see Chen Zhi 陈直, ed. San fu huang tu jiaozheng 三辅黄图校正, 4. 42 Wang Yingling 王应麟, Yuhai 玉海, Gongshi 宫室,“《魏志》：明帝青龙三年三月大治洛阳宫，筑总章观，高十余丈，建翔凤，于上.《洛阳宫殿簿》：总章观阁十三间.”; Li Fang 李昉, Taipingyulan 太平御览, juchubu 居处部, “楼:《晋宫阙名》又曰，总章观，仪凤楼在观上.”

129

The main hall of the Northern Song palace was Daqing-dian 大庆殿. Unfortunately, there is no available historical literature describing its form and height, as there may not have been any notable features worth recording although this is entirely speculative. Other important Dian structures included Zichen-dian 紫宸殿 for court meetings, Chuigong-dian 垂拱殿 for the emperor to handle state affairs, Wende-dian 文德殿 for rest, and Jiying-dian 集英殿 for banquets. Compared to halls of the Qin and Han palaces, these structures were all smaller in scale and lower in height.

Figure 5.5 Reconstruction of the facade of the Huanyuan-Dian (Fu Xinian. Zhongguo gudai jianzhushi 中国古代建筑史, Vol.2, 382).

It is generally accepted that since the Qin dynasty, the scale of Chinese palaces has perceptibly diminished. The height of the main halls of royal palaces also generally decreased from the Han to the Song dynasty, which can be proved by the relevant excavation reports. With the change from tai to dian, the high structure was no longer favoured by Chinese rulers, and their political authority was no longer expressed by towering structures. Imperial codes of construction regulated the inscription of political and social relations within architectural plans, and the edict of Yingshanling, a system for the registration of individual status and power regarding building width and depth, was established in the Tang-Song period. More clearly, Yingshanling rigorously forbade the construction of multi-storey residential buildings for officials and nobilities at all levels. The Han scholar, Dong Zhongshu 董仲舒 (179 - 104 BCE) presented an explanation of this change:

If the building is too high, it would receive too much sunshine and become too hot. If there are too many rooms in a building, these rooms would be too cold to live in. Both of these extreme situations are far from the harmony created by heaven and earth. So people do

130

not build structures at these two extremes, while the best way is to construct modest buildings.43

Dong Zhongshu’s statement seems to be reasonable. However, constructing modest buildings can more deeply be understood as a result of pragmatism. Extravagant structures were extremely costly in terms of money and labour, and their construction greatly increased the burden on the population. Resulting protests and social instability would threaten the dominance of the royal authority, which was not what the rulers wanted. As mentioned above, the story of the Ling King of Chu has proved that criticism of high palatial buildings appeared in the Spring and Autumn period (771 - 476 BCE). Since the Han dynasty, the idea of advocating frugality has been kept firmly in rulers’ minds, considering the short rule of the Qin dynasty (only 15 years) that was believed to be caused by excessive construction projects placing a heavy burden on the people. For example, the Han Emperor Gaozu, Liu Bang, criticised the exceptional luxury of the Weiyang Palace (see Chapter 3). As Liu Bang mentioned, during the process of establishing a new dynasty, people suffered years of wars and misfortune, and they rebelled at constructing luxurious palaces which could well cause protest and disruption later.

Also, the change in Chinese political philosophy was another important reason for the transition of the emphasis of royal construction, which will be fully discussed in Chapter 7. Although high structures were disfavoured, the vertical construction method continued to be used as a standard model of royal construction and applied to produce large scale and beautiful facades of royal buildings throughout entire premodern China. The timber framework depicted in the Song Yingzao-fashi was a representative product of this celebrated construction model.

5.4 Mingtang and political legitimacy

From the Qin-Han period forward, Dian was consistently the dominant building type of royal construction, while Tang buildings of royal construction were mainly used for entertainment or education. To illustrate with cases, the Emperor Gaozu of the North Wei dynasty (386 - 534 CE) built Qinghui-tang 清徽堂 and Ningxian-tang 凝闲堂 for banquets and recreation activities.44 The tang building, Taixue-tang 太学堂, was

43 Dong Zhongshu 董仲舒, Chunqiu Fanlu 春秋繁露, Vol.16, “高台多阳, 广室多阴, 远天地之和也, 故人弗为, 适中而已矣.” 44 Wei Shou 魏收, Weishu 魏书, Lie zhuan diqi 列传第七, Jingmu shier wang 景穆十二王,Yuandeng 元澄.

131

the structure of the national educational institution of the Han dynasty45 and the education building of the royal family in the Song dynasty was called Zishan-tang 资善堂.

However, a multi-storey tang building, Mingtang, was an exception, since it was continuously built by rulers as the tall representative structure for the ceremony authorising the legitimacy of emperors, in almost all dynasties of premodern China. There are various English words translating the Chinese word 明堂, namely Bright Hall46, Hall of Enlightenment47, Hall of Holiness48, Hall of Emanation49, Hall of Spirits50, Hall of Light51, and Ritual Hall52 and Hall of Heaven53. For Western scholars, Mircea Eliade, for example, defined the ceremonial Mingtang as the “symbolic centre” of the state,54 while another scholar, Paul Wheatley in his book, The Pivot of the Four Quarters, described Mingtang as the “pivot” of the cosmos. 55 These explanations allow Western audiences to grasp a more accurate idea of Mingtang. Compared to the important halls of the royal palace, Mingtang was not a direct symbol of royal authority. It was a symbolic reproduction of the universe56 to express concerns of the contemporary political order,57 a more advanced symbolic meaning than that embracing the royal authority. Since the dian structures became the dominant building type of palaces, building height was no longer stressed in royal construction. Nevertheless, Mingtang structures were all built with an emphasis on height.

45 Li Fang, Taipingyulan 太平御览, juchubu 居处部, “《羊头山记》: 太学堂，洛阳南开阳门外，长十丈，广三丈。堂前石经四部，本碑凡四十八枚，西《尚书》、《周易》、《公羊》十六碑，南《礼记》五碑，东《论语》三碑，有谏议大夫马日䃅碑，仪郎蔡邕铭.” 46 Guan, Z, & WA Rickett, Guanzi : political, economic, and philosophical essays from early China, 149. 47 Liu, “The Sung Emperors and the Mingt’ang or Hall of Enlightenment,” 45-58. 48 Loewe, “The central government,” 466. 49 Dobson, Mencius: a new translation arranged and annotated for the general reader, 195. 50 Hughes, Two Chinese poets; vignettes of Han life and thought, 51. 51 Legge, The Chinese classics, 65-66. 52 Wang Zhongshu 王仲殊. Han Civilization, 38. 53 The Japanese scholar Hamada Kaido 滨田恢道 identifies ming 明 with tian 天, Heaven. See Hamada Kaido, “Meido seido shiko” 明堂制度私考, 447. 54 Eliade, Cosmos and History: the Myth of the Eternal Return, 56-58. 55 Wheatley, The Pivot of the Four Quarters, 429-451. 56 Granet, La pensée chinoise, 87. 57 Hwang, “Mingtang: cosmology, political order and monuments in early China”, i.

132

Mingtang is a type of building that is a miniature model of the cosmos, a microcosm, built as a place to communicate with the supreme deity, and it serves as a setting for the important sacrificial rituals and political activities associated with power.58 Mingtang was a representation of the world.59 The topmost Chinese ruler, the emperor, was also named as the Son of Heaven, which means that the emperor was appointed to rule the world through Heaven, the supreme deity.60 If a ruler wanted to identify the legitimacy of his power, he must show that he had received an official mandate from Heaven. The Mingtang was meant to be the place where the Son of Heaven received and implemented his mandate to rule, and it is understandable that a towering Mingtang structure would gain a mandate from Heaven more easily.

Mingtang was also frequently recorded in Chinese literature. The earliest use of the term Mingtang in Chinese literature was discovered in the Yizhoushu 逸周书, where it was mentioned as a structure built by Zhou Gong 周公 to clarify the hierarchical relationship of feudal nobilities.61 This description means that Mingtang was a common structure for all levels of nobility, not just the king of the state, and later in the late Zhou dynasty (1046 - 256 BCE), Mingtang became the name given to national ceremony building. Kaogongji offered detailed sizes of ceremonial buildings in the Xia, Shang, and Zhou dynasties:

People of the Xia dynasty called their ceremonial building the Chamber of Generations (世室). The main tang has a depth of fourteen units and a width of four times that of the depth. People of the Shang named their ceremonial building the Layered House (重屋) with a depth of seven xun deep and a height of three chi (3 meters), which has four roof ridges. People of the Zhou dynasty named their ceremonial building Mingtang. There is a nine chi unit measurement called yan. Mingtang is identified by nine yan on the east and west sides (or from east to west), seven yan on the south and north sides (from south to north), a one-yan height platform (0.69 meters), and five chambers with each a two yan square area.62

58 Meng Xiande 孟宪德, “Mingtang 明堂”, 534. 59 Levi, Les fonctionnaires divins, 148. 60 Liji 礼记, Qu li xia 曲礼下, “君天下曰天子”; Shangshu, Hong fan 洪范: “天子作民父母，以为天下王”; Ban Gu, Baihu tongyi 白虎通义, Jue 爵: “王者父天母地，为天之子也”. 61 Yizhoushu 逸周书, Mmingtang jie 明堂解, “明堂者, 明诸侯之尊卑也,故周公建焉.” 62 Zhou Li, Zhouguan 周官, Kaogongji 考工记, “夏后氏世室，堂修二七，广四修一… 殷人重屋，堂修七寻，堂崇三尺，四阿重屋. 周人明堂，度九尺之筵，东西九筵，南北七筵，堂崇一筵，五室，凡室二筵.”

133

Although this text does not indicate the height of a Xia ceremonial building, the Chamber of Generations, it is clear that the platform foundation of Zhou Mingtang (3 meters) was much higher than that of the Shang ceremonial building (0.69 meters), the Layered House. Also, the text indicates that the building height had been emphasised as an important element of the Mingtang structure by the Zhou dynasty.

The design principles of the Zhou dynasty’s Mingtang can be explored in the literature of the Han dynasty. The Mingtang structure in the Zhou dynasty is a building with a base analogous to the square earth and a roof analogous to the round sky. Hence, the Zhou Mingtang was a representation of the world and a symbolic reproduction of the universe. The official-scholar of Han, Cai Yong 蔡邕 (133- 192 CE), wrote an article to describe the standard design of Mingtang structure. He stated that:

Mingtang is the great temple of the Son of Heaven (天子), the place where the emperor pays respect to his ancestors in conjunction with worshipping the Lord on high. The east chamber of a Mingtang structure is called the Spring Shrine (青阳); the south chamber is called the Mingtang; the chamber to the west is called the Assembly of Decorations (总章); the chamber to the north is called the Somber Hall (玄堂); the centre chamber is called the Great Hall (太室). From the viewpoint of ancestral worship, the structure is called Qingmiao 清庙; considering the face of the front chamber, it is called Taimiao 太庙; from the viewpoint of veneration, it is called Taishi 太室; facing the brightness is called Mingtang; its schools of the four gates are called Da-Xue, and being surrounded by water in the shape of a jade Bi disk is called Piyong 辟雍. They are different names for the same structure based on the different features it possesses.63

According to Cai’s statements, there were various names for the structure and its rooms. The original Mingtang in the Zhou dynasty was made up of five rooms, symbolising the Wuxing 五行, the quinary system on which the Chinese conception of the universe is founded. One room was in the centre and the others on the four sides. Each of these four rooms was in turn, divided into three parts. Thus, twelve locations were

63 Cai Yong 蔡邕, Caizhonglang ji 蔡中郎集, A Study of the Mingtang-yueling (明堂月令论), “明堂者，天子大庙，所以祭祀. 夏后氏世室，殷人重屋，周人明堂，飨功、养老、教学、选士皆在其中. 故言取正室之貌则曰大庙，取其正室则曰大室，取其堂则曰明堂，取其四时之学则曰大学，取其圆水则曰辟雍，虽名别而实同.”

134

obtained that represented the months of the year, locations through which the emperor moved every month, proclaiming the succession of the seasons.

There was no historical record for the Mingtang of the Qin dynasty (221 - 207 BCE), probably because the reign of Shihuangdi of the Qin was too short for building a Mingtang structure. The following Han dynasty restored the Mingtang ceremony of the Zhou dynasty, which started to become a significant instrument associated with political legitimacy. There were three Mingtang structures in the Han dynasty. The construction of the first Mingtang built at the foot the Mount Tai in 109 BCE was closely related to the Fengshan 封禅 ceremony (a ceremony of offering sacrifices to Heaven in the feng rite and to Earth in the shan rite) restored by Emperor Wu (141 - 87 BCE).64 The second Mingtang appeared in Chang’an by the end of 4 CE due to the zeal for ritual reforms that made the construction of a ceremonial building appealing. The third Mingtang was built by Emperor Guangwu (5 BCE - 57 CE), who retook power from the rebel Wang Mang 王莽 (45 BCE - 23 CE). Even with his Han royal blood and formidable military accomplishments, Emperor Guangwu felt obliged to justify his regime, and in 56 CE, he ordered the construction of a new Bright Hall, south of Luoyang.

Two of the three Han Mingtang structures have been excavated. The Mingtang completed in 4 CE was unearthed south of the Han capital, Chang’an in 1956. The site consists of a central building enclosed by a wall built in a square shape and surrounded in turn by a circular ditch. The ditch surrounds a circular field with four rectangular extensions at the four cardinal points. The walls of the extensions had gates facing the four cardinal points of the compass. Within the walls, the main building stood on two raised platforms: one, a circular platform, at least 0.3 meters in height, rose above a square platform that measured 205 meters on each side and 1.6 meters in height. The main building occupied an area of 42 square meters, including a square unit with four rectangular extensions.65

The second Mingtang structure located in Luoyang was discovered in 1963 but was not excavated until 1978. According to the official report issued in 2010, the Luoyang Mingtang is made up of three major

64 Fengshan was an official rite offered by the kings of Zhou and later emperors of China to perform a two-fold ceremony at Mount Tai —— offering sacrifices to Heaven in the feng rite and to Earth in the shan rite. See Sima Qian, Shiji, fengshanshu 封禅书. 65 Tang Jinyu 唐金裕, “Xi’an xijiao Han dai jianzhu yizhi fajue baogao” 西安西郊汉代建筑遗址发掘报告, 45.

135

components: the enclosing walls, a surrounding ditch, and a central building. 66 The walls enclosed the central structure that was erected on a round terrace measuring 61.8 meters in diameter. A ditch closely encircled the round terrace. Judging by the traces of post holes on the terrace, the main timber structure was round, although inside the round building was a square core, to which various chambers were attached. The main structure of the Mingtang in Luoyang, therefore, looked very different from that in Chang’an.

Whereas archaeological excavation sometimes reveals architectural plans, it is not as informative about the structures above the ground. A general image of the Chang’an Mingtang can be estimated based on the remaining column holes, loam wall, and grooves. Three proposals have been made for the reconstruction of the Chang’an Mingtang. Scholar Yang Hongxun claims that the main timber structure was built on a rammed-earth terrace and faced four directions. There were five rooms in each quadrant, but the rooms on the south side were smaller. Below the main structure, fifteen columns stood against the rammed-earth terrace on each side and were not strictly in line with that of the main structure. Based on these columns, eight rooms of smaller-scale were attached to the terrace in a circular arrangement. The whole building viewed from the exterior would have appeared as a two-story structure because the surrounding timber structure hid the rammed-earth terrace [Figure 5.6].67 Wang Shiren 王世仁 contests this arrangement and pictures the Chang’an Mingtang as a three-story building with four halls on the lower level, five chambers on the second, and a single room on the top [Figure 5.7].68 Wu Hung 巫鸿 agrees with Yang Hongxun and Wang Shiren that the shape of the top floor is round, and the structure has three stories, but Wu has the ideas about the interior partition different from them.69

Evidence from archaeological sites proves that the post holes along the circular platform for the Luoyang Mingtang, indicate that the main building was round and started at ground level, in striking contrast to its

66 Ye Zhiqiu 叶知秋, “Han WeI Luoyang gucheng nanjiao lizhi jianzuh yizhi 1962-1992 kaogu fajue baogao” 汉魏洛阳故城南郊礼制建筑遗址 1962-1992 年考古发掘报告, 96. 67 Yang Hongxun, “mingtang fanlun: Mingtang de kaoguxue yanjiu” 明堂泛论：明堂的考古学研究, 75-76. 68 Wang Shiren 王世仁, “Han Chang’an cheng nanjiao lizhi jianzhu yuanzhuang de tuice” 汉长安城南郊礼制建筑原状的推测, 501. 69 Wu Hung, Monumentality in Early Chinese Art and Architecture, 177.

136

Figure 5.6 Section through the Chang’an Mingtang restored by Yang Hongxun (Yang Hongxun 杨鸿勋, Jianzhuxue kaogu lunwenji 建筑学考古论文集, 182).

Figure 5.7 Section through the Chang’an Mingtang restored by Wang Shiren (Liu Xujie 刘叙杰. Zhongguo gudai jianzhushi 中国古代建筑史, Vol.1, 431).

Chang’an precedent, which was composed mainly of cubes. No other scholars, except Yang Hongxu, offered reconstruction models for the Luoyang Mingtang. He portrays the Luoyang Mingtang as a three-story building with thirteen units: four halls on the first floor, eight chambers on the second, and one chamber at the top.

137

These proposals are all reasonable speculations based on historical documents, although no documents directly associated with the appearance of the Chang’an Mingtang are available. Regardless of their disagreements, they all agreed that the Chang’an Mingtang was constructed using the vertical construction model and presented multiple layers of architectural elements.

After the Han dynasty, the most typical Mingtang structure emphasising building height is probably that built by Wu Zetian (624 - 705 CE). She was a Chinese sovereign who ruled unofficially as empress consort and empress dowager and officially as an emperor during the brief Zhou dynasty (690 - 705 CE), which interrupted the Tang dynasty. Wu Zetian was the sole officially recognised empress regnant of China in more than two millennia, an unprecedented situation which led to a pressing need to prove the legitimacy of her throne. Thus, she became the emperor who held the most ceremonial rituals in the Mingtang structure among all emperors of premodern China.

Figure 5.8 The rammed-earth foundation of Wu Mingtang (Zhang Yibing 张一兵,“Mingtang zhidu yanjiu —— Mingtang zhidu de yuanliu” 明堂制度研究 —— 明堂制度的源流, 168).

In 687 CE, Wu Zetian ordered the dismantling of the Qianyuan-dian 乾元殿, the main hall of the Ziwei Palace 紫微宫, where she then built a Mingtang structure at the site.70 One year later, the structure was finished. There was no Mingtang structure built in Tang dynasty before that, but three years later, it became

70 Liu Xun 刘昫, Jiu tangshu 旧唐书, Liyi zhi 礼仪志, “垂拱三年春, 毁东都之乾元殿, 就其地创之. 四年正月五日, 明堂成.”

138

the structure identifying the new Zhou dynasty when Wu substituted a new regime for the old Tang dynasty in 624 CE. Archaeologists discovered the site of the Wu Mingtang in 1988. Archaeological information suggests the size of the rammed-earth foundation that was formed by five concentric rings, had a 4.9-meter radius column hole in the centre. The first ring is 8 meters wide followed by the second of 6.5 meters; the third was 8 meters, the fourth 3.9 meters, and the fifth 11.7 meters.71 These rings display the boundary of each level of the structure as column holes were found along the lines of the rings of the rammed-earth foundation [Figure 5.8].

Although the timber structures above the foundation have been totally destroyed, a text in the historical record, Jiutangshu 旧唐书 described the form of the Wu Mingtang:

The Mingtang structure was completed in the fifth day of the first month of the lunar year. It is two hundred and ninety-four chi high, and its east, west, south, and north sides are all three hundred chi. There are three storeys in the structure: the bottom level symbolises the four seasons with different colours for each compass point; the middle level symbolises twelve hours according to the traditional Chinese calendar with a round dome decorated by nine dragons, and the top-level symbolises the twenty-four solar terms in the Chinese lunar year, also with a round dome.72

According to Yang Hongxun’s study, the Wu Mingtang was strikingly more than 86 meters high, which was an incredible height in premodern China.73 Each of the three storeys consisted of one layer of columns and beams and two layers of bracket sets and roof rafters. [Figure 5.9].

71 Zhongguo shehuikexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo luoyang tangcheng dui 中国社会科学院考古研究所洛阳唐城队, “Tang dongdu wuzetian mingtang yizhi fajue jianbao” 唐东都武则天明堂遗址发掘简报, 227. 72 Ibid, “四年正月五日明堂成, 凡髙二百九十四尺, 东西南北各三百尺; 有三层, 下层象四时, 各随方色; 中层法十二辰, 圆盖, 盖上盘九龙捧之; 上层法二十四气, 亦圆盖.” 73 Yang Hongxun, “mingtang fanlun: Mingtang de kaoguxue yanjiu” 明堂泛论: 明堂的考古学研究 , 86.

139

In the following Song dynasty, for many decades, the empire did not construct any Mingtang structures. The main hall of the royal palace, Daqing-dian 大庆殿, was used as the palace to hold ceremonial rituals. The early Song rulers all followed the principle of frugalness for construction activities so that the hall was constructed very simply. However, a grandiose Mingtang construction project was launched by the Emperor Huizong in 1115 CE after Yingzao-fashi was published. This structure, according to the relevant historical records, followed the form of the Mingtang of the Zhou dynasty. Though no details of its form or height are provided in the literature, one can speculate that as a significant structure of royal construction, the Song Mingtang would have had a vertical construction focus, following the regulations prescribed in Yingzao- fashi.

Figure 5.9 The elevation of the Wu Mingtang restoration (Yang Hongxun, “mingtang fanlun: Mingtang de kaoguxue yanjiu” 明堂泛论：明堂的考古学研究, 88.).

140

Chapter 6

Government Construction and Tingtang

6.1 The evolution of tang and ting buildings

Throughout imperial history, tang and ting were the core building types of government construction and Chinese dwellings. Chinese builders created a structural type, tingtang, which was highly appropriate for meeting urban construction standards and servicing diverse governance and living demands. In Yingzao- fashi, there was no specific term exclusively referring to royal structures, because diantang and diange were both frequently mentioned in the text of the law. However, the term tingtang frequently appeared in the text of Yingzao-fashi as a fixture of government buildings, which demonstrates that tang and ting are both the most representative buildings of government construction. Either tang or ting buildings played a significant role in the political discourse of premodern China. Throughout the long course of Chinese history, tang, serving as a common name of the important space or place in a building and even of the building itself, was consistently the core architectural concept referring to royal, governmental, and even non-official construction, regardless of functions and occupants. In contrast, ting was created much later in China and initially used by officials as a specific place to deal with government affairs. From the Song dynasty, it was widely built within imperial officials’ residences as a hall for meeting guests and holding daily family conversations.

Due to the dearth of knowledge of the roots of Chinese architecture, the Chinese architectural concepts ting and tang have generally both been rendered as “hall” or “mansion” in most English literature referring to them, thereby losing their unique original meanings. The original meaning of the Chinese word 堂 was the bright space of a building, which commonly faced south and was considered the main living room. The introductory chapter of Yingzao-fashi discussed the meaning of tang by quoting ancient documents, Shuowe 说文 (explaining characters) and Shiming 释名 (interpreting names). Shuowe suggested that tang was a

141

synonym of dian, while Shiming explained tang as a tall building showing striking grandness. However, these interpretations of tang were too simple to illustrate its profound meaning within Chinese culture.1

Tang was probably the most comprehensive concept within the totality of Chinese architectural discourse. It was used as a generic name given to important building space of both official and non-official construction, and when tang space occupied the dominant element of a building, tang could also refer to the whole structure. In a traditional Chinese dwelling, especially for officials, tang was regarded as the paramount space of the complex, normally courtyards, and used for rituals, ceremonies, and family conversations. Tang space was normally positioned at the middle bay of a dwelling with 3 or 5 bays. In a government office complex, the largest tang space, called Da-tang 大堂 (big hall), was the place for the chief administrative officer to decide legal matters and issue government orders. Tang buildings were also constructed in royal palaces as education architecture and sometimes as a place for leisure and entertainment in royal gardens. However, there were significant distinctions between tang buildings of royal construction and government construction in terms of construction methods, structural forms, and building details. The number of royal tang buildings was quite limited in whatever dynasty of premodern China, compared to that of governmental tang buildings, the features of which can be explored from a review of the historical evolution of tang buildings.

The earliest architectural mention of tang dates back to the Zhou dynasty (1044 - 256 BCE). The Chinese classic about social behaviour and ceremonial ritual in the Zhou dynasty, Yili 仪礼 (etiquette and ceremony), presented two basic meanings of tang at that time. First, the main structure of a building complex either for scholar-officials’ residences or public activities, like temples and schools, was called tang. Specifically, the tang building in the plan was normally divided into two sections: the front was an open space, and the rear consisted of enclosed spaces known as shi 室 (room) and fang 房 (ordinary room) for living and storage respectively. Apart from being the name given to the whole building, tang, secondly, was also the name of the open space, and there could be more than one tang space in a tang building. The front section of the building consisted of three tang spaces: Middle tang, Eastern tang, and Western tang, and there was a special Northern tang space facing north and adjacent to the fang [Figure 6.1]. The open tang spaces were used as

1 Li Jie, Yingzao-fashi, vol.1.

142

places for daily activities and important family rites like weddings, funerals, and ancestor sacrifices, while for public institutions, tang space functioned as a common meeting area and for different types of ceremony.

Figure 6.1. Internal layout of a tang building of scholar-officials during the Zhou dynasty from Liyitu (礼仪图, Etiquette) by Zhang Huiyan in Qing dynasty; English translation by Pengfei Ma (National Diet Library, Tokyo).

The importance of tang was expressed by its symbolic meaning. According to Chinese literature, rulers’ tang buildings had also been treated as symbols of their status in the Zhou dynasty. Kaogongji suggests that tang was a common name of ceremonial buildings in the Xia, Shang, and Zhou dynasties, particularly Mingtang in Zhou.2 As noted in Chapter 5, the Confucian classic Shangshu indicates that the status of nobilities in the Zhou dynasty was symbolised by the height of their tang buildings.

In the Han dynasty, the configuration of the tang building for official dwellings remained like that in the earlier Zhou dynasty, but some senior officials and nobilities started to build another independent tang building as a place to handle their official business. This was called exterior tang and possessed the same spatial configuration as the original interior tang for family living. The two tang buildings in one dwelling were separated by a door, Zhongmeng 中门 (middle gate) to form two yards front and back. From the Han

2 Zhouli, Kaogongji, “夏后氏世室, 堂修二七, 广四修一…. 殷人重屋, 堂修七寻, 堂崇三尺, 四阿重屋. 周人明堂, 度九尺之筵, 东西九筵, 南北七筵, 堂崇一筵….”

143

dynasty forward, tang, the dominating architectural product of government construction, was constantly built in government complexes and officials’ courtyards as a core building.

Yingzao-fashi did not offer any interpretation of ting, while some other contemporary literature did. The original semantic meaning of the Chinese word, ting was listening; it later became an architectural concept when referring to a one-storey building for administrative officials to handle governmental affairs.3 Ting as an architectural type emerged much later than tang and assumed a different role from tang in Chinese habitation. According to the historical literature of the Weijin period (220 - 420 CE), ting at that time was not only the office building for administrative officials but also the main building of some officials’ dwellings. For instance, the Weishu 魏书 (Standard history of the Wei dynasty, 386 - 534 CE) describes a ting building well-known in Taiyuan county. It was built by Wang Chun 王椿, the local governor famous for his professional skills in construction, and his Ting building functioned as the main structure of his mansion. Residents were so impressed by the grandeur of the structure that they called Chun’s mansion ‘the King’ mansion of Taiyuan.4

From the Tang dynasty (618 - 907 CE) forward, the residential and office buildings of incumbent officials tended to merge into building complexes known as Yazhai 衙宅 (office dwelling), a setting for working and living, which incorporated separate courtyards linked only by doors. Some records of the historical literature of the time, for example, a story from Jiu-tangshu 旧唐书 (Standard history of the Tang dynasty, 618 - 907 CE) is evidence of the separation:

The senior general Gao Xianzhi 高仙芝 as well as the governor of Anxi district, often nominated his assistant general Feng Changqing 封常清 to govern and defend their administrative region when he went out to battle. Another general, Zheng Dequan 郑德诠, the son of Xianzhi’s foster-nurse, maintained brotherly relationships with Xianzhi. Therefore, Dequan regarded Changqing as his servant and usually despised him. Once, when Changqing returned to the government office, following the lead of

3 Song Qi 宋祁 and Zheng Jian 郑戬, Jiyun 集韵, Qingyun 青韵, “古者治官处谓之‘听事’; 后语省, 直曰‘听’, 故加广.” 4 Wei Shou, Wei Shu 魏书, Wangchun zhuan 王椿传.

144

other generals, Dequan rode a horse in front of them in order to show contempt for Changqing. When Changqing arrived at the ting of the government office, he immediately ordered his men to bring Dequan, who was in the governor Xianzhi’s dwelling at that time, to see him clandestinely. The ting building (where Changqing arrived) was connected to the dwelling courtyards. After Dequan went through several doors and reached the ting, Changqing ordered his men to close these doors, isolating the ting from the dwelling courtyards.5

In addition, the clauses of the Tang dynasty Yingshanling, specific to the official dwellings, only stipulated the rules for the construction of tang and lacked instructions for ting. That meant ting was not adopted as the building of official dwellings, indicating the rigorous distinction between offices and dwellings in the Tang dynasty. Also, there is insufficient evidence to confirm that ting had been a building for dwellings of the common people at that time.

Ting came to be recorded as a building serving common family living from the following Song dynasty (960 - 1279 CE). Ting, at that time, was not only built within official Yazhai but also within common people’s dwellings. Simashi-shuyi 司马氏书仪 (Ceremonial of Sima) and Zhuzi-jiali 朱子家礼 (Family Etiquette of Zhuzi) are two classics of family etiquette and ceremony, compiled respectively by the well-known Confucian scholars of the Song dynasty, Sima Guang 司马光 and Zhu Xi 朱熹 (Zhuzi). Both books specify the ideal configuration of Chinese residential courtyards.6 The main buildings are positioned along the middle axis of the courtyards. From exterior to interior, in order, are the entrance gate, ting, middle gate, middle tang and the bedroom. The order is quite similar to that found in the Han dynasty mentioned above, but a ting building displaced the exterior tang building of Han.

5 Liu Xun, Jiu tangshu, Feng Changqing zhuan 封常清传, “仙芝每出征讨, 常令常清知留后事. 常清有才学, e. 知留后时, 仙芝乳母子郑德诠已为郎将, 德铨母在宅内, 仙芝视之如兄弟, 家事皆令知之, 威望动三军. 常清出回, 诸将皆引前, 德诠见常清出其门, 素易之, 自后走马突常清而去. 常清至使院, 命左右密引至, 厅连节度使宅院, 凡经数重门, 德诠既过, 命随后闭之.” 6 See Sima Guang, Simashi-shuyi 司马氏书仪; Zhu Xi 朱熹, Zhuzi-quanshu 朱子全书, Jiali 家礼.

145

For office dwellings, some local chronicles of the Song dynasty presented more a detailed configuration of Yazhai through illustrations [Figure 6.2]. There was only one main ting located in the central front yard, connected to the rear tang buildings by corridors, while there could be several tang buildings at the back and adjacent to the side yards. Doors or corridors were used to link the ting and the courtyard walls on both sides. Because of the requirements of etiquette, ting was the main building, functioning as a meeting room for guests or officials and handling government business. In contrast, tang at the rear was mixed with gardens and living rooms to support private family conversation and daily leisure.

Figure 6.2 Plan of a SongYazhai from Jingding-Jiankangzhi (景定建康志 local chronicle of Jiankang), by Zhou Yinghe in the Southern Song dynasty; English translation by Pengfei Ma (Guo Daiheng, The Ancient Chinese Architectural History, vol.3, 616).

Overall, ting and tang, albeit a close nexus in Chinese dwellings, were two building types for different functions until the Song dynasty. Ting was mainly the place for social communication and government business, while tang accommodated family living and rituals. In naming the timber framework tingtang, the compiler of Yingzao-fashi seemingly attempted to establish a corresponding relationship between building types and structural types, notwithstanding the absence of strict regulation. As a state standard for official construction, the treatise failed to standardise vernacular dwellings, but the tingtang framework was also widely applied in building ting and tang for common people with a strict limitation for the use of eaves brackets and the number of bays in their buildings. In fact, ting and tang of both officials and common people gradually merged into one building to carry both society and clan living during the following Ming

146

dynasty (1368 - 1644 CE) and Qing dynasty (1644 - 1912 CE). As the core buildings of Chinese dwellings and government offices, ting and tang were simply the architectural representatives of Chinese inhabitation.

6.2 Government organisation and tingtang politics

The political meaning of tang and ting was more directly expressed by the operation of imperial central administration, especially by the structure and tone which Tang and Song rule imparted to China’s governance. During the Tang-Song period (618 - 1279 CE), specific tang buildings of governments, Zhengshi-tang and Du-tang, worked as independent administrative centres and even became a political symbol of administrative authority. The functional changes and adjustments of specific tingtang organs of central government implied an underlying power struggle between the emperors and prime ministers (宰相) that was consistently one of the significant political themes of imperial China. In particular, the frequency of administrative meetings in some specific tingtang structures, during the period of the Yuanfeng Reform (1078 CE), embodied the power struggle between the conservatives and reformers of the Song court.

To ensure a better understanding of the relationship between tingtang buildings and the civil governance of China in the Tang Song period, a succinct introduction of the imperial central government at that time is presented first. The structure of central government in Tang-Song period was based on the Three Departments and Six Ministries (三省六部) system that was created in the Sui dynasty (581 - 618 CE) and followed by the Tang and Five Dynasties period (907 - 960 CE).7 To manage the new empire, the founding emperor of Sui, Yang Jian, established an administrative system for central government by modifying that of previous dynasties.8 This system consisted of the top-level imperial managers, Three Preceptors (三师) and Three Dukes (三公), plus the Five Central GoveCEment Departments (五省) and Six Ministries (六部).9 However, the Three Preceptors and Three Dukes were purely honorary positions without any executive power or administrative liability.10 Among the five departments, the Literature Sector’s (秘书省) duty was

7 Tuo Tuo, Songshi, vol.16, Zhiguan; Liu Xun, Jiu tangshu, vol.43, Zhiguan 职官; Weizheng, Suishu vol. 26, Baiguanzhi 百官志. 8 Weizheng, Suishu vol. 26, Baiguanzhi. 9 Ibid. 10 Yang Youting 杨友庭, “Sansheng liubuzhi de xingcheng jiyi zai tangdai de bianhua” 三省六部制的形成及其在唐代的变化, 64.

147

managing the imperial literature and documents, while the Chamberlain Sector (内侍省) serviced the living requirements of the royal family and relevant household affairs. They were the two main service sectors without any administrative function. Consequently, actual administrative power was held by the remaining three departments and six ministries.

The Three Departments were the top-level administrative organs of the central government in the Sui dynasty and its successor, the Tang dynasty. They consisted of the Central Secretariat (中书省), responsible for drafting policy, the Chancellery (门下省), responsible for reviewing policy, and the Department of State Affairs (尚书省), responsible for implementing policy. The six ministries were direct administrative agencies of the state under the Department of State Affairs, including the Personnel Ministry (吏部), Rites Ministry (礼部), War Ministry (兵部), Justice Ministry (刑部), Engineering Works Ministry (工部), and Revenue Ministry (户部) [Figure 5.3].11 The Central Secretariat (or Secretariat) was the main policy- formulating agency that was responsible for proposing and drafting all imperial decrees, although its actual functions varied at different times. The Chancellery’s function was to advise the Emperor and the Central Secretariat and to review edicts and commands made by the Secretariat. These two departments were normally located within the palace precincts due to their close nexus with the emperor. The Department of State Affairs, which controlled the six ministries, was the highest executive institution of the imperial government and situated outside the palace city. The heads of the Three Departments were the de facto leaders of the central government and shared the general title of prime ministers. However, the structures, functions and locations of the Three Departments and Six Ministries were frequently altered along with the reconstruction of central authority in the Tang-Song period.

11 Tuo Tuo, Songshi, vol.16, Zhiguan; Liu Xun, Jiu tangshu, vol.43, Zhiguan; Weizheng, Suishu vol. 26, Baiguanzhi.

148

Zhengshi-tang and Du-tang started to become the core organ from the Tang Dynasty onwards. Early in the Tang dynasty, the three departments operated independently without a requirement for communication, making the central administration inefficient. To change this situation, Emperor Taizong 太宗 (599 – 649 CE) created Zhengshi-tang in the Chancellery, as a meeting place for the Three Departments [Figure 6.3]. The heads of the Three Departments regularly met there to discuss government affairs and exchanged their opinions on policies. Because of the frequent meetings in Zhengshi-tang, it gradually turned into a joint office, a permanent establishment in which the heads of Three Departments and their deputies worked

Emperor

Zhengshi-tang Chancellery Department of State Affairs Secretariat

Ministry of Ministry of Ministry of Du-tang Ministry of War Ministry of Ministry of Personnel Revenue Rites Justice Works

Figure 6.3 Three Departments and Six Ministries during the Tang dynasty, produced by the author 2019.

daily.12 By that time, Zhengshi-tang became the real locus of power in the Tang Empire. Another important tang building in the central government was Du-tang. Du was a common name of imperial executive officials, and Du-tang was the general office of the Department of State Affairs [Figure 5.3]. The typical layout of the Department of State Affairs featured a Du-tang placed in the middle of the administrative complex with ministries of personnel, Rites, and Revenue on its east and War, Justice, and Engineering Works on its west.

During the reign of Emperor Xuanzong 玄宗 (656 - 710 CE), Zhengshi-tang was replaced by the new organisation of Central Secretariat and Chancellery (中书门下), which had been completely separated from the Three Departments and had become an independent centre. The function of the Three Departments was then basically superseded by the new hub, although they still survived within the central administrative

12 Yao Chengyu 姚澄宇, “Tangchao zhenshitang zhidu chutan” 唐朝政事堂制度初探, 97-100; Wang Chao 王超, “Zhenshitang zhidu bianzheng” 政事堂制度辨证, 107-109; Chen Zhen 陈振, “Zhenshitang zhidu bianzhengZhiyi”〈政事堂制度辨证〉质疑, 89-91.

149

system. The heads of the Three Departments gradually lost their authority as prime ministers, and the roles became an honorary position. The head of the Central Secretariat and Chancellery become the sole leader. There is no doubt that this change represented a centralisation of prime ministers’ power. However, even though the old Zhengshi-tang had been replaced by the new organisation of the Central Secretariat and Chancellery, much contemporary historical writing still referred by custom to Zhengshi-tang, a former symbol of the supreme executive department.

Zhao Kuangyin 赵匡胤 ended the turbulent period of the Five Dynasties by establishing the Song Empire in 960 CE, being the emperor Taizu 太祖 (927 - 976 CE). As the founding emperor, he developed an administrative system by making some changes to the existing Three Departments and Six Ministries. Zhengshi-tang became the alternative name of the Central Secretariat and Chancellery. The official Song History citation offered a comment on the structure of the early Song government:

Song continued the Tang system, while severely curbing its defects. The (high honorary) offices of the Three Preceptors and the Three Dukes were not regularly filled. The prime ministers were no longer exclusively appointed from among the heads of the Three Departments. Both the Department of State Affairs and the Chancellery were located on the outside of the palace precincts, while the Central Secretariat and Chancellery, also called Zhengshi-tang, was set up apart from them, inside the palace. Together with the Privy Council (枢密院), they shared control over the major acts of governance.13

13 Tuo Tuo, Song shi 宋史, Vol.161, Zhuguan 职官, “宋承唐制, 抑又甚焉. 三师, 三公不常置, 宰相不专任三省长官, 尚书, 门下并列于外, 又别置中书禁中, 是为政事堂, 与枢密对掌大政.” This text is a translation I follow Frederick W. Mote. See Mote, Imperial China: 900-1800, 109.

150

The passage above succinctly describes the structural differences between the early Song and the Tang central governments. The Central Secretariat and Chancellery of the Song remained to manage civil governance, similar to the Tang Xuanzong period (712 - 756 CE). The Privy Council, a military division created in the later Tang period (923 - 936 CE) (one of the Five Dynasties), became established as the top- level agency in charge of military affairs. These two organs, separated from the Three Departments, were informally called Erfu 二府 (the two government organs) by Song officials, to represent their dominant position within the imperial administrative system [Figure 6.4].14 The old Three Departments still remained but away from the centre of administrative power. They were housed in limited small-scale offices and located outside of the royal palace. 15

Emperor

Central Secretariat and Chancellery Privy Council State Affairs

Zhengshi-tang Affairs Figure 6.4 Organisation of Song central government before the Yuanfeng Reform, produced by the author.

In this administrative system, tang and ting structures were still the core offices. Zhengshi-tang was an important public office of the Central Secretariat and Chancellery. The executive instruments, both to and from the emperor, were normally first discussed in Zhengshi-tang by prime ministers and ministers; then the details were worked out by each official in their personal office. Each prime minister and general ministers had their separate personal office called Ben-ting 本厅 (own ting). When the detailed policies had been formulated, the subsidiary units of the Central Secretariat and Chancellery, took final responsibility for the implementation of these policies. Any ministers and officials of the sector could discuss affairs in the Zhengshi-tang. For example, according to the historical record, when Wang Anshi presided over the political reform as the prime minister, his opponent Cheng Hao 程颢, who rejected the reform policies was demoted. Another official Zhang Jian 张戬 defended Cheng Hao against an injustice. He came to the Zhengshi-tang

14 Tuo Tuo, Songshi, vol.16, Zhiguan; 15 Ibid.

151

and stated the defects of reform policies to Wang Anshi, but the prime minister just hid his face under a fan and smiled, without giving him any response.16 Another story mentioned in Lvshi zaji 吕氏杂记 explains the function of Ben-ting. In a year of the Tiansheng Reign of Emperor Renzong (1023 - 1032 CE), the official Yang Hong 杨宏 was designated by the central government to investigate a remote town. Before leaving, the prime minister explained Yang Hong’s task in the Zhengshi-tang meeting, but Yang Hong was still confused about what to do. Then another minister Lv Yijian 吕夷简 said to Yang Hong: “ [After the Zhengshi -tang meeting,] when officials start to work in individual ting offices, please come to my Ben-ting [to discuss the task in detail].”17

However, the private meeting of prime ministers was banned in Ben-ting. In 991 CE, the official Wang Yuanzhi 王元之 submitted a proposal to the court regarding the use of Zhengshi-tang. He suggested that in order to avoid a private plot, prime ministers must meet other officials at the Zhengshi-tang, and conversations in prime ministers’ Ben-ting were rigorously forbidden.18 The court approved the proposal, and then Zhengshi-tang became the only public place in the Central Secretariat and Chancellery where prime ministers could discuss business with other ministers. Zhengshi-tang at this period was also named as Du- tang in some literature, differing from another Du-tang in the Department of State Affairs. In addition, the place where the leaders of the Central Secretariat and Chancellery and the Privy Council discussed significant decisions and policies, was called Nan-ting 南厅 (South ting), a specific ting structure away from the Central Secretariat and Chancellery. The director and the deputy director of the Privy Council normally did not attend meetings in the Zhengshi-tang but attend meetings in Nan-ting.

By establishing Erfu and holding the meeting in Zhengshi-tang, Emperor Taizong greatly weakened the prime ministers’ power to initiate and integrate policies by creating an alternative locus of power in the military, economic, civil governance, and the social management functions of the central government. He also rejected the prime ministers’ monopoly on the transmission of executive instruments both to and from

16 Shao Bowen 邵伯温 (1055 – 1134 CE), Guolao tanyuan 国老谈苑, “天祺（张戬）尤不屈, 一日至政事堂言新法不便, 介甫不答, 以扇障面而笑.” See Zhu Yian 朱易安 and Fu Xuancong 傅璇琮. Quansong biji 全宋笔记, 184. 17 Lv Xizhe 吕希哲 (1036 - 1114)，Lvshi zaji 吕氏杂记, “分厅后却请天使（指杨宏）略到某本厅.” See Ibid, 208. 18 Wang Bizhi 王辟之 (1031 - ?), Shenshui yantan lu 渑水燕谈录, vol. 5, Guanzhi 官职.

152

the emperor. In this way, he eliminated much of the independent discretionary authority of many components of his central government and simultaneously brought the regional and local offices of government under the centre’s more direct supervision.

The function of Zhengshi-tang was largely changed after the Yuanfeng Reform, the significant reform of the Song bureaucratic system in the Yuanfeng period. In the early Song, a large number of imperial officials stayed in their offices with fewer tasks to do, because colleagues from other units or centres had done their work. Thereby, many government sectors were overstaffed early in the Song, forming probably the most bloated bureaucratic system in Chinese history and producing a huge financial burden for the government to shoulder. To change this situation, the Yuanfeng Reform was launched by Emperor Shenzong of Song (1048 - 1085 CE) and finished in 1082 CE. This reform simultaneously proceeded with the Wang Anshi reform that focused on altering national policies. The main aim of Yuanfeng-gazhi was to ensure official titles matched reality. As a specific measure, Emperor Shenzong restarted the original Three Departments and Six Ministries system of the Tang dynasty, replacing the Erfu administrative system. The Zhengshi-tang, along with the Central Secretariat and Chancellery was dismissed by the reform, and their functions and executive power were fully inherited by the Three Departments that again acted as the highest organs of national administration.

Since the Zhengshi-tang was dismissed, a new tang structure was created as a meeting place for all prime ministers of the Three Departments and the Privy Council and their deputies. This structure was called the Du-tang of the Three Departments (三省都堂), and it was an independent institution, subordinate to neither

Emperor

Du-tang of the Three Departments Privy Council State

Chancellery Du-tang of the Department Department of State Affairs Secretariat of State Affairs

Ministry of Ministry of Ministry of Ministry of War Ministry of Ministry of Personnel Revenue Rites Justice Works

Figure 6.5 Organisation of Song central government after the Yuanfeng Reform, produced by the author 2019.

153

the Three Departments nor the Privy Council [Figure 6.5]. A regulation for the four segments of government, issued in 1085 CE prescribed that “Leaders of the four organs must discuss the affairs for which they need to make a decision together, such as official appointments and proposal submissions, at the meetings of the Du-tang of the Three Departments.”19 The function of the Du-tang of the Three Departments replaced that of the previous Nan ting, but there were more participants at the Du-tang meetings. Meanwhile, the Du-tang of the Department of State Affairs still survived as an office for handling rather trivial affairs.

The Du-tang of the Three Departments was installed in the core office areas of the royal palace. After Yuanfeng-gazhi, the Three Departments and the Privy Council were relocated. According to the literature, the four organs of the Central Secretariat and the Chancellery, and the Privy Council, together with the Dutang of the Three Departments, were located in parallel within the royal palace, while the implementing agency, the Department of State Affairs, was located out of the palace [Figure 6.6].20 The department’s remoteness made communications between the Department of State Affairs and other organizations difficult. In this case, regular meetings at the Du-tang of the Three Departments was critical for the smooth operation

Figure 6.6 Plan of the Song dynasty royal palace and position of the organs of the central government, produced by the author 2019.

19 Li Tao 李焘, Xu zizhitongjian changpian 续资治通鉴长篇, vol.358, 8567. 20 Xu Ziming 徐自明, Song zhaifu biannianlu 宋宰辅编年录, vol.8, 497.

154

of the entire central administrative system. A text from the literature recording daily affairs of the Song court, Song-huiyao-jigao (Draft Assembly of Import Affairs in the Song Dynasty) describes the meetings at the Du-tang:

The Assistant of the Chancellery Lv Gongzhu 吕公著 following his predecessor acted as Right Councillor of the Department of State Affairs as well as the Assistant of the Central Secretariat. Since Cai Que 蔡确 and Zhang Dun 章惇 (the preceding prime ministers) were deposed, Sima Guang 司马光 had been ill, so he was unable to take the position of a prime minister to manage the government. When Han Shen 韩缜 (who was designated to succeed Cai Que and Zhang Dun) resigned, Lv Gongzhu exercised the prime ministerial powers. When Cai Que and Zhang Dun were in position, the executive officials of the various departments met at the Du-tang building every three or five days. The officials of Du-tang carrying documents had to literally run daily to and from the ting offices of each minister to report affairs, because of the separation of the Department of State Affairs from other and other bodies). Due to the low frequency of Du-tang meetings, prime ministers could make arbitrary decisions by themselves without any discussion with others. It was difficult for other ministers to participate the government affairs. Sima Guang even begged Cai Que for increasing the frequency of Du-tang meetings, which would provide more opportunities for other ministers to propose suggestions, but Cai Que never permitted that. When Lv Gongzhu was in power, he held Du-tang meetings daily.21

This text suggests that the utility of the Du-tang structure embodied the changing power structure of the imperial central government around the Yuanfeng period. It is noteworthy that both of Cai Que and Zhang Dun were advocators of the Wang Anshi Reform when Wang Anshi was in power. When they held the position of Councillors of the Department of State Affairs to conduct the Yuanfeng Reform, Wang Anshi had been removed from his post. Cai Que and Zhang Dun were appointed as executors to implement the Yuanfeng Reform, probably because Emperor Shenzong intended to continue Wang Anshi’s policies. Cai

21 Xu Song 徐松, Song-huiyao-jigao 宋会要辑稿，Zhiguan yi 职官一，Sangong sanshao 三公三少, “公著依前官守尚書右仆射兼中書侍郎. 自蔡確、章惇罷，司馬光已臥疾.及韓縝去位，公著攝宰相事. 先是，執政官每三、五日一聚都堂. 堂吏日抱文書，曆諸廳白之. 故為長者得以專決，同列難盡爭也. 光嘗懇確，欲數會議，庶各盡所見，而確終不許. 公著既秉政，乃日聚都堂.”

155

Que restored the Three Departments and Six Ministries, following the wishes of Emperor Shenzong, but he reduced the frequency of the Du-tang meetings. In this way, his power was enhanced, although it is unknown whether Cai Que did that in order to promote reform policies. In 1085 CE, Emperor Shenzong died, and his son Emperor Zhezong took over the throne. Cai Que’s behaviour made the royal family feel threatened by the growing power of prime ministers. Soon afterwards, Cai Que and Zhang Dun were deposed. Sima Guang and Lv Gongzhu, as dissenters of the Wang Anshi reform, took the position of prime ministers, and other ministers of the four central organisations were requested to discuss national affairs at the daily Du-tang meetings. This regulation lasted until the fall of the Song dynasty.

However, later, Sima Guang and Lv Gongzhu also attempted to strengthen the prime ministers’ power. In 1089 CE, Sima Kang 司马康, the son of Sima Guang, submitted a posthumous proposal for his father to the court, suggesting the Du-tang of the three departments be renamed to Zhengshi-tang and that the Central Secretariat and Chancellery of the early Song be restored.22 This proposal intended to change the “meeting room” Du-tang into a real office, thus reducing the frequency of discussions among ministers. Lv Gongzhu in 1088 CE resigned from the prime minister’s position and claimed retirement, but after that, he still participated in government affairs through working in his residence that was located very close to the central government office complex.

6.3 Song tingtang prose

Government construction was also one of the most significant topics on which Chinese literature focused. In the Tang and Song dynasties, for those politicians, as well as scholars, who were away from government affairs, literary creation was an important task in their daily living, since it could improve their reputation among the public. The working and living environments provided sources for scholar- officials to gain inspirations for literary creation. Over the history of Chinese literature, scholar-officials produced a great number of literary works regarding their buildings. In comparison to works of royal construction that were often described as symbolic icons in poetry, structures of government construction were frequently employed as one of the themes of a specific literary form, prose, which presented the important achievements of Chinese literature. The Song scholar-officials produced a substantial amount of prose focusing on ting and tang structures. However, these works primarily

22 Li Tao, Xu Zizhitongjian changpian 续资治通鉴长篇, vol.431, 10410.

156

described their value in orienting social behaviour and political doctrines concerning national governance, instead of focusing on the physical features of these tingtang structures. Partly as a result of this emphasis, tingtang structures were used by scholar-officials as icons to express their ambitions to devote themselves to the political arena.

Literary prose in premodern China was rather formalized. For roughly 2,000 years after the Qin dynasty, Chinese writers generally needed to write in a standard literary language that utilised the grammar and ancient characters of the Warring States Period (475 - 221 BCE), called literary Classical Language. The literary prose in the pre-Qin period was written in freestyle so that sentences and paragraphs were logically organised to express the writer’s intention clearly. The grace of expression and the rhetoric were not emphasised in this style. In the Han dynasty (206 BCE - 220 CE), a variation was developed that was called piantiwen 骈体文 (rhythmic style), and the previous freestyle was called guwen 古文 (old style) to distinguish it from the new one. Piantiwen was not as clear or precise as guwen and was florid, ornate and rigid. Piantiwen was the dominant prose style for several hundred years afterwards. During the late Tang dynasty (618 - 907 CE), two prominent officials, Han Yu 韩愈 and Liu Zongyuan 柳宗元, tried to reintroduce the style of guwen. They are considered two of the greatest prose masters of the Tang and Song eras. During the Song dynasty, the scholar Ouyang Xiu 欧阳修 (1007 - 1072 CE) helped to revive writing in the guwen style. This neoclassical style then dominated prose writing for the next 800 years.

The guwen style was favoured by the Song scholar-officials, especially the reformers and utilitarians. During the Tang Song period, the most eminent writers of prose were categorized as the Eight Great Writers (唐宋八大家): Han Yu and Liu Zongyuan in the Tang dynasty, Zeng Gong 曾巩, Ouyang Xiu, Wang Anshi, and the three Su writers (三苏): Su Xun 苏洵 and his sons Su Shi 苏轼 and Su Che 苏辙 in the Song dynasty. Some of them are also well-known as politicians, such as Ouyang Xiu, Wang Anshi, and Su Shi. Two distinct mainstreams were contending about how to write prose literature. At the beginning of the Northern Song dynasty, the piantiwen style was preferred by writers like Yang Yi 杨亿 and Liu Yun 刘筠 who belonged to a literary school called the Xikun Group (西昆文派). Their rivals, including Wang Yucheng 王禹偁 and Fan Zhongyan 范仲淹, composed their work in a more straightforward and less ornate style, and their school was called the Jianghu Group (江湖文派). Ouyang Xiu helped the simple style to win in the style debates because he believed piantiwen pieces often neglected content in favour of formal criteria, called the formalist school, in opposition to the realists.

157

Song dynasty prose, following Ouyang Xiu’s works, was generally designed to express intangible spirit or powerful arguments with a focus on an actual object. Objects could be all-embracing, ranging from man, the natural world, landscapes, and buildings to social groups and events. Among them, building prose was a specific category favoured by scholar-officials. The main building types in building prose involved were tang 堂, ting 厅, ti’ng 亭, lou 楼 and ge 阁. In particular, tang and ting were core structures of a scholar- officials office and dwelling. Normally, when an important tang structure was constructed within governments or dwellings, it was a tradition in the Song dynasty that the famous local literati would be requested to write prose for the tang structure, and this prose would be hidden inside the walls of the building. In contrast, Ting prose was commonly written on the walls of ting structures of the regional governments as records of local prefects. Prose for tingtang structures was prolifically created by some great writers, such as Ouyang Xiu, Wang Anshi, Fan Zhongyang, and Su Shi. These writers at the same time were also significant political figures and ideologists who exerted their influence on the Song court and even the entire Chinese civilization.

Ouyang Xiu was the primary figure to push the development of building prose. He passed the highest civil examination of Song and obtained the highest grade when he was twenty-four years old. Immediately, he was assigned to a minor secretarial post in the offices of the governor of Luoyang. During his four years in that centre of culture and wealth, his literary talent attracted so much attention that he soon became famous. Meanwhile, the young Ouyang Xiu started to think about the doctrines of officials’ political behaviour. He clarified his principles of political life in the prose, Feifei -tangji 非非堂记 (notes from the tang of denying incorrectness):

If a man living in the world is not dazzled and confused by the blinding glare of worldly possessions, he must be peaceful in his heart. Such inner peace would give him the wisdom to produce excellent insight. The principles of affirming correct things and denying incorrect things were universally applicable. Affirming correctness is often close to flattery, and denying incorrectness is often close to slander. Correct words and deeds are the norms of a gentleman. It is no need to affirm correct things. Overall, it is more advisable to deny incorrectness than to affirm correctness. Therefore, I give the

158

name, Feifei (denying incorrectness) tang, to the tang structure in which I live and which is constructed to the west of the main hall of the local government.23

In 1036 CE, the prefect of the capital city, Fan Zhongyan, criticized the Chief Councillor for showing favouritism in promotions and submitted a proposal to reform the criteria for advancing and demoting officials. When conservatives denounced Fan, saying that his proposal was intended to sow distrust between the emperor and his court, he was demoted to a post in the regional government. Ouyang Xiu then over- stepped his station and submitted a scathing denunciation of Fan’s principal critic. For this, Ouyang Xiu also was demoted, receiving a minor post as a magistrate in a small county, called Yiling 夷陵, on the upper Yangzi River in western Hubei. While holding the post in Yiling, Ouyang Xiu wrote the prose, Yilingxian- zhixi-tangji 夷陵县至喜堂记 (Notes from the tang of arriving happy in Yiling). In this article, he first introduced the local history and customs, and then he explained the function of the structure and why he named this tang building as Zhixi:

I am a banished official coming to this place. The prefect of Yiling, Mr Zhu is my old friend. He sympathises with my experience and constructed this tang structure east of the Ting hall of the government for me to live in. The tang I daily live in is clean, neat, bright, and comfortable. Normally, the guilty officials should be banished to a place with severe conditions, giving them a hard life. By doing this, the guilty officials are expected to express their repentance and determination to turn over a new leaf. However, I am so lucky that I encountered Mr Zhu in this place which provided me with such good living conditions. I arrived at the beautiful place of Yiling, and I am so happy with the tang structure in which I live. Therefore, I named the structure Zhixi (arriving happy) tang. I create this prose and hide it in the wall of the Zhixi-tang.24

23 Ouyang Xiu, Feifei tangji 非非堂记, “处身者不为外物眩晃而动, 则其心静, 心静则智识明, 是是非非, 无所施而不中. 夫是是近于谄, 非非近于讪, 不幸而过, 宁讪无谄. 是者, 君子之常, 是之何加？一以观之, 未若非非之为正也.” See Zeng Zaozhuang 曾枣庄 and Liu Lin 刘琳, Quan song wen 全宋文, vol.741, 133. 24 Ouynag Xiu, Yilingxian zhixi tangji 夷陵县至喜堂记, “某有罪来是邦, 朱公与某有旧, 且哀其以罪而来, 为至县舍, 择其厅事之东以作斯堂, 度为疏、洁、高、明, 而日居之, 以休其心. 夫罪戾之人, 宜弃恶地, 处穷险; 使其憔悴忧思, 而知自悔咎……既至而后喜也. 作至喜堂记, 藏其壁.” See Zeng Zaozhuang and Liu Lin, Quan song wen 全宋文, vol.739, 103.

159

At the end of the prose, Ouyang Xiu praised the prefect and suggested that the level of local prosperity should be recorded in order to let successive prefects know Mr Zhu’s achievements in his career.

Another example of Ouyang Xiu’s tang prose, Youmei-tangji 有美堂记 (notes from the tang of having beauty), mentioned the intentions of officials to communicate with the emperor. According to his statement at the outset of the article, in 1057 CE, the high-level official of the Personnel Ministries, Mei Qingshen 梅清慎, was designated by the emperor to take office in Qiantang (today Hangzhou). Before Mei left the capital, the emperor wrote a poem for him as a present due to their good relationship.25 When Mei Qingshen arrived, he built a tang structure on the Wu mountain of Qiantang and named this tang as Youmei, for these two words were used at the beginning of the poem which the emperor wrote for him. He prepared an inscribed board with the name Youmei, and hung it in the structure, which was deemed to glorify local people. Mei Qingshen constructed Youmei-tang to express his reverence to the emperor, but this meaning cannot be widely understood by people through the structure. In a literary society where literati occupied the dominant social class, literary creation was accepted as a common approach of communication between all levels of the social stratum. Consequently, Mei Qingshen invited Ouyang Xiu, the leading litterateur at that time, to create the prose for the structure.

From 1060 CE, Ouyang Xiu was appointed as the Deputy Chief Counsel, a member of the imperial core administrative team. Five years later he wrote the prose Zhoujin-tangji 昼锦堂记 (notes from the tang of day beauty), for his colleague, Chief Council Han Qi 韩琦. Han built the Zhoujin-tang at his hometown Xiangzhou 相州 in 1055 CE when Han took up the prefect position in the county. The prose first described a kind of honour called Yijin-zhirong 衣锦之荣 (glory of beautiful cloth). When a scholar was suffering and in poverty in his home village, even ordinary people and children can despise and bully him. Nevertheless, after he became a high-level official and returned to the village with beautiful cloth, those people who always had despised him would feel deeply guilty. Such glory of returning was named Yijin-zhirong.26 However,

25 Ouynag Xiu, Youmei tangji 有美堂记. See See Zeng Zaozhuang and Liu Lin, Quan song wen 全宋文, vol.742, 122. 26 Ouynag Xiu, Xiangzhou zhoujing tangji 相州昼锦堂记, “仕宦而至将相, 富贵而归故乡, 此人情之所荣, 而今昔之所同也. 盖士方穷时, 困厄闾里, 庸人孺子, 皆得易而侮之. 若季予不礼于其嫂, 买臣见弃于其妻. 一旦高车驷马, 旗旄导前, 而骑卒拥后, 夹道之人, 相与骈肩累迹, 瞻望咨嗟; 而所谓庸夫愚妇者, 奔走骇汗, 羞愧俯伏, 以自悔罪于车尘马足之间. 此一介之士, 得志于当时, 而意气之盛, 昔人比之衣锦之荣者也.” See Zeng Zaozhuang and Liu Lin, Quan song wen 全宋文, vol.742, 124.

160

Ouyang Xiu then suggested that Han build the tang structure not for flaunting his glory, but for reminding himself to maintain modesty. Ouyang Xiu eventually highly praised the political achievements of Han Qi who had been given the title of Duke of Weiguo (卫国公), a great honour.

Han Qi even built a tang structure in his mansion and named it Zuibai-tang 醉白堂. The word Zuibai was picked up from the poem of chishang 池上 (above the pool) written by Bai Juyi 白居易, a famous scholar- official and litterateur in the Tang dynasty. When Su Shi, the great litterateur noted above heard that, he created the prose for Zuibai-tang in which he expressed his reverence for Han Qi. According to Su’s statement in the article Zuibai-tangji 醉白堂记 (notes from the tang of drunk Bai), Su believes that Han Qi gave his structure the name Zuibai-tang in order to express Han’s admiration for Bai Juyi. However, Su argued that it was not necessary for Han to do that. Su Shi in Zuibai-tangji compared Han Qi and Bai Juyi in terms of their political achievements and personal moral calibre. Su Shi finally concluded that Han Qi greatly surpassed Bai Juyi in many respects. The purpose of writing the article seemed to be to attract the Chief Council’s attention and to impress Han Qi. The scholar Huang Zheng 黄震 (1213 - 1280 CE) commented on the Zuibai-tangji: “The aim of repeatedly comparing Han and Bai is to express Su’s flattery of Han Qi, which is the hidden meaning in the words of the article.”27

Han Qi, mentioned above, was also a prominent political figure of the Song dynasty. During his life, acting as the Chief Counsel of the central government, he serviced three generations of emperors. Similar to Sima Guang, Han was a stern critic of the Wang Anshi reforms. He also produced building prose, including the ting prose of Yangzhou-tingbi-timingji 扬州厅壁题名记 (notes from the wall inscription for the ting of Yangzhou)28 and Dingzhou-tingbi-timingji 定州厅壁题名记 (notes from the wall inscription for the ting of Dingzhou).29 In the Dingzhou tingbi-timingji, Han mentioned that writing ting prose on the walls of the main ting hall of governments had been prevalent since the Tang dynasty, and these inscriptions were commonly created to mark officials’ achievements or political doctrines, so they could be studied and revered by their successors.

27 Huang Zheng 黄震, Huangshi richao 黄氏日抄, “反复将白乐天、韩魏公参错相形, 而终之以取名也廉之说, 尊韩之意, 隐然自见于言外矣.” 28 Zeng Zaozhuang and Liu Lin, Quan song wen 全宋文, vol.854, 44. 29 Ibid, vol.854, 43.

161

Wang Anshi, as discussed in preceding chapters, was the leader of a famous reform of Song society. He is also famed for his prose writing. The most representative building prose was the Duozhi-fushi-tingbi-tiji 度支副使厅壁题名记 (notes from the wall inscription for the ting of the deputy director of Duozhi). Duozhi was one of the three bureaux (三司) that took responsibility for managing the imperial finances. Wang Anshi clarified his political doctrines in this inscription prose:

What assembles populace is wealth. What manages the wealth is the decree, and those who execute decrees are official. If officials neglected their duty, the decrees would not be implemented. If the decrees are unreasonable, the management of national finance will tend to be chaotic. If national finance is poorly managed, even the general people, not necessarily rich businessmen, would have the power to manipulate the market, to obtain monopolies of all kinds of materials, and to compete with the emperor for hunting subjects, so as to meet their own infinite desires. If that happens, the emperor is lying when he claims he does not lose his subjects. Even if the emperor, who treats sound public finances as a guarantee for his politically secure reign, lives a simple and unadorned life and works depressingly hard, I affirm this is not a good way to manage the national finances. Therefore, it seems that making correct decrees and choosing good officials to carry decrees out, are correct approaches to ensure a flourishing imperial economy.30

It is obvious that Wang Anshi believes correct decrees and well-behaved officials were the overwhelming things to which the government should attach importance. In fact, most policies of his reform were designed to improve the fiscal revenue by reforming imperial decrees and official systems, for example, Yingzao- fashi, hence making the country more powerful to face the military threat from neighbouring countries.

30 Wang Anshi, Duozhi fushi tingbi tiji 度支副使厅壁题名记, “夫合天下之众者财, 理天下之财者法, 守天下之法者吏也. 吏不良, 则有法而莫守; 法不善, 则有财而莫理. 有财而莫理, 则阡陌闾巷之贱人, 皆能私取予之势, 擅万物之利, 以与人主争黔首, 而放其无穷之欲, 非必贵强桀大而后能. 如是而天子犹为不失其民者, 盖特号而已耳. 虽欲食蔬衣敝, 憔悴其身, 愁思其心, 以幸天下之给足, 而安吾政, 吾知其犹不行也. 然则善吾法, 而择吏以守之, 以理天下之财.” See Zeng Zaozhuang and Liu Lin, Quan song wen 全宋文, vol.1407, 39.

162

In the Song dynasty, the scholar-officials, typically Ouyang Xiu, Wang Anshi, Fan Zhongyan, could perform multiple roles. They were politicians who devoted themselves to national administration, social reform, and corresponding political conflict. They could be philosophers and practitioners applying traditional Confucianism and utilitarianism, and at the same time, they were also pre-eminent literati, who possessed brilliant skills in prose writing and who produced so much writing that it was deemed to be a renaissance of the classic literary style. Ting and tang structures, as the core accommodation of both scholar-officials’ working and living lives, were also selected as the theme of their prose. While studying the Song tingtang prose, it is noteworthy that none of them offered any description of the construction and technological features of the structures themselves. Writers in tang prose prefer to simply introduce the purpose of the construction and its function but paid more attention to the owner of the tang. The theme of the tang prose was often to praise the owner’s moral character and virtue or to express their value orientation regarding social behaviour. Ting prose commonly presented the writers’ political doctrines in relation to national governance, as ting was the main place to deal with administrative affairs. Both tang and ting prose inferred the scholar-officials’ ambitions to devote themselves more to the political arena.

6.4 Parallel space and Chinese residences

The horizontal construction model that tingtang buildings adopted naturally produced an orderly set of parallel spaces. These ordered spaces constitute the basic spatial feature of Chinese timber structure and perfectly satisfied the demands of Chinese living in a premodern society. The transformation of parallel spaces, including combinations, rotations, and conversions, provided flexibility for tingtang structures to yield various spatial configurations; even the Chinese courtyard can be understood as an extension of parallel spaces at the plan level. It is their flexibility that endowed the timber structure with an incredible vitality which underpinned Chinese habitation for millennia.

In the Song dynasty, tingtang buildings were not only the core offices of governments at all levels but also the main buildings for officials’ and even commoners’ dwellings. Correspondingly, the horizontal construction model of tingtang frameworks in Yingzao-fashi was widely adopted as the dominant construction method to produce various buildings for both official and non-official construction. As noted in Chapter 4, the painting Qingming-shanghe-tu reflects the fact that most urban buildings in the Song dynasty were constructed by the horizontal construction method. However, how the space produced by this construction method served Song society is a topic that needs further exploration.

163

The unique spatial organisation of the horizontal construction model fostered identifiably Chinese modes of life, and one of its key features is its extensibility. The timber structure was the cardinal element forming the space and volume of Chinese buildings, and to a large extent, determined their internal spatial configuration. The space between two transverse frames was called jian 间 (bay), the basic measuring unit of building scale in premodern China.31 The horizontal construction method, the longitudinal connection of transverse frames, produced a series of homogeneous parallel spaces, or bays, defined by transverse frames. For a linear building, several bays are normally arranged in a row to form a building, and a tingtang framework can be infinitely extended in the horizontal direction as long as new timber frames are connected.

The flexibility of parallel space was embodied not only in its extension but also in its combination. The simple parallel spaces standing in a line were of the same depth and height, and only their width could fluctuate. These properties limited the utility of the simple parallel spaces, but Chinese builders enriched their extension to make them sufficiently flexible. The combination, rotation, and conversion of parallel spaces, according to the practical demands of construction, were to enable more complex and subtle spatial configurations in Chinese buildings. In addition to single buildings, even the classical Chinese courtyard, the basic pattern of the Chinese residence, may be considered a logical extension of tingtang, for the peripheral buildings enclosing the courtyard were all with the tingtang framework. Such flexibility produced the various form of tingtang structures that can satisfy almost all requirements of Chinese accommodation.

31 Jian can also be used to describe buildings produced by the vertical construction method. For a diange structure, jian is the space between two column arrays, though there are no manifest transverse frames in diange structure.

164

To illustrate with a case, Sanshan Villa (三山别业) was the dwelling of Lu You 陆游 (1125 – 1209 CE) the preeminent poet of the Southern Song dynasty. The main living area was roughly located in a building in the centre of a large landscaped garden. The main building, with a plan in the form of ⊥, was a typical set of parallel spaces [Figure 6.7]. There was a five-bay structure placed in the front, while the bay in the middle was the Tang space. Three parallel bays were perpendicular to the front five parallel bays, connecting to the rear of the Tang space. According to Lu You’s own writing, the three-bay structure linking to the Tang was the shi (室 bedroom) for living and sleeping, while tang was the place to meet for the purpose of a private conversation with guests.32 The door at the front facade of tang was the main entrance door of the building, and another small door connected the tang and shi spaces. In winter, the small door would be the entrance door of the Shi and usually closed to keep the shi warm, thus separating tang and shi into two independent spaces. In the hot summer, the small door would be removed to encourage ventilation from the main entrance door to penetrate throughout the entire tang and shi. In this case, the Tang would merge with Shi into an integrated space. A noteworthy room was the end area of the right-hand side of the five-bay space. Its front wall has recessed some distance, making the room much smaller than the other rooms. The summer sunlight

Figure 6.7 Plan of Sanshan Villa (Guo Daiheng, Zhongguo gudai jianzhushi 中国古代建筑史, 618).

32 Lu You 陆游, Jushiji 居室记, see Qian Zhonglian 钱仲联, Luyou-quanji-jiaozhu 陆游全集校注.

165

would be blocked by the sidewall of the room to the left, so Lu You called the small room a fine place for a summer respite.33

The main building of the Sanshan Villa exemplifies the flexibility of the parallel spaces, but it was not unique. In fact, there are various extensions of parallel space that can be accessed from Song paintings, including L-shaped, T-shaped, and even 工- shaped plans. The painting Qianli-jiangshan-tu 千里江山图 (Thousand Miles of Rivers and Mountains) was a masterpiece work of Wang Ximeng 王孟希 (1096 - ? CE), one of the court painters in the Northern Song period. He created this masterpiece when he was only eighteen years old. Although there is no evidence to prove that the dwellings depicted were identical to those, in reality, their basic layout and form probably approximate that of real dwellings. The various dwellings depicted in this painting reflected the versatility generated by the combination, rotation, and conversion of parallel spaces. The painting shows both the simple parallel spaces and their various extensions. Dwellings of all forms were depicted in this painting, ranging from the single structures to multiple courtyards, and buildings appear in many forms: randomly positioned buildings, a linear design, T-shaped design, L-shaped design, 工-shaped design, and two-storey buildings. Among these extensions, the 工-shaped plan was depicted frequently in the Qianli-jiangshan-tu, suggesting the popularity of the design in the Song dynasty and as shown in every illustration in Figure 6.8.

The design of the 工-shaped plan creates a connection between the living and public space. There are many more examples of 工-shaped structures in Song paintings. They are found in the picture of Jiangshan quite tu 江山秋色图 (rivers and mountains in autumn’s colours) by Zhao Boju’s 赵伯驹 and Liyuan xianmian tu 荔院闲眠图 (napping in the Litchi Courtyard) by Zhao Daheng’s 赵大亨. These structures have a similar configuration: the front structure functions as more public space, usually a ting space, as it is often connected to the gate of dwellings, while the rear section appears to be used as a place for privacy, living, or sleeping. For a tingtang structure, since the doors of buildings are usually in the central bays, the simplest way to connect two buildings aligned one after the other is to add a corridor between them.

33 Lu You, Dongpian xiaoshi quri zuiyuan meitao shuzhidi xizuo wuzi 东偏小室去日最远每逃暑之地戏作五字, see Ibid.

166

Figure 6.8 工-shaped structures in Wang Mengxi, Thousand Miles of Rivers and Mountains, Palace Museum, Beijing, after Fu Xinian, Steinhardt, and Harrer. Traditional Chinese Architecture: Twelve Essays, 300.

167

The rich forms of timber structures produced by the combination, rotation, and conversion of parallel spaces attained the wide diversity of building complexes and courtyards in the Song dynasty. The T and 工-shaped structures in Qianli-jiangshan-tu were depicted usually as a part of building groups rather than as solitary buildings. In addition to a simple structure enclosing a courtyard with fences, Wang Ximeng painted several building complexes made up of corridors and structures with complex forms and multiple levels [Figure 6.9]. The building developments and multiple courtyards, as common painting subjects, could also be observed within many other Song landscape paintings, though in some of these paintings it is difficult to judge what the function is of the depicted complexes. As an exemplar, the painting of Songdeng-jinglu 松磴精庐 by Yan Ciping 阎次平 (ca.1163 CE) shows a building complex sitting against a mountain, whose compositions contain the winding corridor covered with a successive roof, free-standing buildings, and some structures attached to the main building [Figure 6.10]. Other Song paintings with a focus on building complexes include the picture of Huichang-jiulao-tu 会昌九老图 (nine elders in Hui Chang)，Qiqiao-tu 乞巧图 (begging skills)，Sijing-shanshui-tu 四景山水图 (landscapes of the four seasons) by Liu Songnian 刘松年，and Xishan-guanlou-tu 溪山楼观图 (Watching Pavilions in the Xi Mountain) by Yan Wengui 燕文贵.

Figure 6.9 Line drawings of nine large residential complexes in Wang Mengxi, Thousand Miles of Rivers and Mountains, Palace Museum, Beijing, after Fu Xinian, Steinhardt, and Harrer. Traditional Chinese Architecture: Twelve Essays, 299.

168

However, there were evident disadvantages to the T and 工-shaped structures. The corridor between two buildings blocked sunshine coming into the important room in the middle of buildings, for example. Li Jie, the compiler of Yingzao-fashi, criticised such forms when his friend asked him for advice about house construction. Li Jie stated that “The tang room should not be positioned in the shadow of other structures.

Figure 6.10 Building complex in the painting of Songdeng-jinglu 松磴精庐 by Yan Ciping 阎次平( National Palace Museum, Taipei).

It is incorrect that some houses were lately designed with front corridors connecting the tang room.”34 Due to these defects, since the Yuan dynasty (1271 - 1368 CE) forward, the connecting corridor and the T-shaped and 工-shaped structures gradually disappeared from courtyards. The quadrangle courtyards enclosed by linear structures at three or four points started to become the dominant forms of government construction. Typically, the Kong Mansion (孔府) in Qufu is composed of three isolated quadrangle courtyards that are positioned along a central axis one after another [Figure 6.11].

34 Liu Qi 刘跂, Xiari ji 暇日记, “堂屋前要不背三阳. 今人家作伫廊非也.”

169

For a typical family building of the Ming dynasty, the main building in a Chinese courtyard without corridors at the front also embodied the classical parallel spaces for Chinese living. Within the five-bay structure, the centre room tang, as the most essential space, was the place for ancestor ritual and family conversation. The two rooms adjacent to tang were for daily living and family recreation, while the outermost rooms were bedrooms, treated as the least important spaces [Figure 6.12]. From the Ming dynasty forward, it is arguable that a rectangular courtyard enclosed by tingtang structures started to become the dominant form of Chinese dwellings until modern China. A typical courtyard, the historical type of Chinese residence, was also a building complex of parallel spaces.

Figure 6.11 The Kong Mansion (孔府) in Qufu (Pan Guxi. Zhongguo jianzhu shi 中国建筑史, 169).

170

Figure 6.12 The internal spatial configuration of a typical tang structure of a courtyard in the Ming dynasty (http://wwww.39kb.cn.china-designer.com/Easy/news/688)

171

Chapter 7

Political Philosophy and Scholar-officials

7.1 Official construction and political philosophy

Supreme political power and status started to be associated with the Sky or Heaven, a natural concept since the Zhou dynasty. Early in Chinese history, the Xia (ca. 2070 - 1600 BCE) and Shang (ca. 1600 - 1045 BCE) dynasties, worshipped ancestors as deities, and there were specific structures built for the sacrificial ceremony of ancestors at that time. However, this tradition changed from King Wen’s reign, a noble of the Shang dynasty and who laid a foundation for the establishment of the Zhou dynasty. His action of overthrowing the Shang dynasty was regarded as following the Mandate of Heaven.1 In contemporary literature, the kings of the Zhou dynasty were also called Tianzi 天子 (the son of Heaven), which means that kings were assigned by Heaven, the supreme deity, to manage the human world. 2 Consequently, the buildings of kings merited a high floor level as they needed to live closer to the supreme deity, so facilitating the reception of mandates from Heaven.

The political question about how to maintain a mighty united empire arose in the Qin and Han period. Guided by Legalist thought, Shihuangdi of the Qin conquered the various warring states in 221 BCE. He created for himself the title of huangdi 皇帝 (emperor), beginning the imperial age of China. However, he still followed Legalism principles for governance with draconian laws and heavy punishment for non- compliance, and also he failed to create an effective administrative system to manage the vast empire. His subjects denied acknowledging his authority established by military conquest. Thus, the oppressive government fell soon after his death and was succeeded by the Han dynasty (206 BCE - 220 CE). Even the architectural symbol reflecting the unprecedented power of the emperor, Epang Palace, had not been finished when the Qin dynasty ended. Learning the lesson from the Qin dynasty, the early Han rulers had to ponder a question: how could they make their reign long-lived?

1 Shangshu, Zhoushu 周书, Kanghao 康诰, “皇天上帝，改厥元子，兹大国殷之命.” 2 See Chapter 5, footnote 59.

173

The answer to this question was not found until the reign of Emperor Wu (156 - 87 BCE) who was the fifth emperor of the Han dynasty. Emperor Wu is considered one of the greatest emperors in Chinese history. His effective governance led to the Han dynasty being one of the most powerful empires in world history. He was virtually responsible for establishing centralised authority and the hierarchical system of imperial government that dominated China for the entire later premodern time. His policies and most trusted advisers were also Legalist, favouring adherents of Gongsun Yang.3 However, different from Shihuangdi of the Qin, Emperor Wu adopted the principles of Confucianism as the political philosophy and code of ethics for his empire and started a school Taixue 太学 (national school) to teach future officials the Confucian classics. These reforms had an enduring influence on imperial China and an enormous effect on neighbouring civilisations.

Confucian scholars then developed a theory called chengwei 谶纬 (divination) to explain the legitimacy of political authority. They believed that political events, like the succession of the throne, could be detected in advance by interpreting celestial and other phenomena occurring in nature. According to the theory of Chengwei, Heaven should be conceived by people as a mighty force that established the political order of the human world, and receiving the mandate of Heaven was treated as vital evidence proving the legitimacy of the supreme ruler. “Only with the mandate of Heaven could a feudal lord rise to be the sole ruler of China, the Middle Kingdom.”4 Influenced by these thoughts, the Han rulers established a set of national institutions for the worship and authorisation, including fengshan 封禅. The Fengshan ceremony was closely related to the Mingtang, where rulers endeavoured to make Heaven’s mandate visible.5

After the Han dynasty, China entered the period of Weijing, the Northern and Southern dynasties (魏晋南北朝) (220 - 589 CE), an unstable period of frequent civil wars and political chaos. The thoughts of Xuanxue 玄学 (metaphysics) dominated China in this period. In general, it reinterpreted the social and moral understanding of Confucianism in ways to make it more compatible with Daoist philosophy.6 Xuanxue

3 Creel, Chinese Thought from Confucius to Mao Tse-tung and What is Taoism? and Other Studies in Cultural History, 25. 4 Tseng, Picturing Heaven in Early China, 3. 5 Wang, The story of stone, 66-69. 6 Chan, “Neo-Daoism”, 303.

174

philosophers were concerned with restoring unity and harmony to the land, not by condemning the teachings of the sages, but by interpreting them in new ways. Xuanxue thinkers developed their theories by reinterpreting the relationship between Daoist and Confucian texts through an appreciation of their common themes. However, Xuanxue rarely involved political philosophy due to the lack of a stable political environment. During the turbulent era, centralised political authority was very weak, and the social order established by Confucianism was undermined. Consequently, neither architectural heritage nor literature at that time was able to present any striking buildings of palaces and governments. Only religious architecture produced some famous works in this period because of the prevalence of Buddhism. Typically, the timber pagoda of Yongning Temple built by the royal family in 516 CE was said to be 147 meters high, which means that the construction techniques at that time had made it possible to build a sky-high all-timber structure.

Different to the Han dynasty, scholars in the Weijing period of the Northern and Southern dynasties were indifferent to politics. During this time, political discourse was monopolised by the gentry class, families of power and influence (门阀), and members of these families occupied the overwhelming majority of government posts. The commoners virtually had no chance to enter the bureaucratic system. Consequently, there was an explicit and impassable gap between rulers and commoners. The limited social mobility led to the reduced motivation of scholars to become officials, so they devoted much of their time into enjoying nature and the landscape and focused on literary writing. Nevertheless, some of the architectural icons in their literary creations still manifested scholars’ powerful political ambition, such as Huangjin Tai and Weique Xin noted in Chapter 5.

The centralisation of political authority and Confucianism was revived in the Sui-Tang period. In 581 CE, Emperor Wen of Sui ended the chaotic age by establishing the Sui Empire. China became a unified empire again. Similar to the Qin Empire, the Sui Empire only existed for a short time before being replaced by the powerful Tang dynasty. Historians generally regard the Tang and Song dynasties as a high point in Chinese civilisation and the peak of cosmopolitan culture. To reestablish the Confucian social order, the Tang rulers developed a political philosophy that more focused on the commoners rather than the gentry class. The commoners were deemed as the key to determining the survival or downfall of a dynasty. Emperor Taizong, considered to be one of the greatest emperors in China's history, always expressed his political philosophy by saying: “water may keep the boat afloat but may also sink it.” He compared the people to water and the ruler to a boat and believed that people were able to both support a regime and to overturn it. His political philosophy stressing the significance of commoners in enabling his reign became regarded as the exemplary

175

model against which all future emperors’ efforts were measured. His era, the “Reign of Zhenguan (贞观之治)”, is considered a golden age in Chinese history, and his governing conceptions was regarded as required studying material for future crown princes.

Emperor Taizong laid a solid foundation for the subsequent prosperity of the Tang dynasty. After his reign, his successors constructed several magnificent palaces on a large scale to demonstrate the power of the empire, including Daming Palace in Chang’an, Ziwei Palace and Shangyang Palace in Luoyang. Nevertheless, the buildings comprising these palaces were all constructed on rammed-earth foundations, which were much lower than those of the palatial buildings in the Qin-Han period, as height was no longer stressed in royal construction. Notwithstanding the grandness of these palaces, their construction did not seem to impose a heavy burden on society and people generally, as no negative comments on these official buildings have been found in the historical records. Instead, some Tang literati created prose to acclaimed these palaces, such as Hanyuandian-fu 含元殿赋 (Poem for Hanyuan Hall) by Li Hua 李华 and Shangyanggong-fu 上阳宫赋 (Poem for Shangyang Palace) by Jia Deng 贾登.7 However, in the mid-Tang period, the successive Tang rulers tended to favour luxurious palaces and royal buildings, which was criticised by some contemporaneous scholars. For example, Du Mu made a direct criticism about this of Emperor Jingzong in his article, Epanggong-fu.

The impressive palaces of the Tang dynasty were constructed based on the well-organised urban construction that also provided officials and commoners with good habitation. The political philosophy focusing on the relationship between rulers and commoners directed the rulers to develop urban construction benefiting the entire society. Compared to previous dynasties, the Tang Empire demonstrates more inclusive and open cultural traits. Decentralised rule and frequent military confrontations between different nationalities and regions before the unification of Tang resulted in a broad ethnic amalgamation in China. Such amalgamation and frequent foreign communication endowed the Tang dynasty with the nature of openness and inclusiveness and promoted the formation of multi-cultural urban construction and life, especially in the capital Chang’an. At that time, people from the Western and Northern tribes, who were called huren 胡人(barbarian people) by the Han Chinese, often came to Chang’an to trade. They preferred

7 Jia Deng 贾登, Shangyanggong-fu 上阳宫赋, see Li Famg 李昉, Wenyuan-yinghua 文苑英华, Vol. 47，Gongshi Lei 宫室类；Li Hua 李华, Hanyuandian-fu 含元殿赋, see Ibid.

176

to settle down near the West Market of Chang’an, where many restaurants offered dancing and singing performance in the cultural style of the Western and Northern tribes.

The Song dynasty, in contrast to Tang, further enhanced centralisation and developed a more complicated bureaucratic system. The founding emperor of Song, Emperor Taizu (927 - 976 CE), formerly was a distinguished military general of the Later Zhou dynasty (951 - 960 CE). He came to power after launching a coup and forcing the last Later Zhou ruler to abdicate the throne. Learning that the powerful military leaders posed a great threat to imperial power, Song emperors vigilantly watched military officials. Emperor Taizu even said to his Prime Minister Zhao Pu 赵普 (922 - 992 CE): “It took five dynasties for the brutal rule to end. The people have suffered from long-term disasters. Now, I order you to select hundreds of Confucian officials to govern the feudal states. Even though these officials are all corrupt, they are less of a threat to the royal sovereign in comparison to the military officials.” This statement represented the political doctrine of Emperor Taizu about imperial governance. Such a political philosophy valued the scholar- officials adhering to Confucianism and led to the unprecedented social status of scholar-officials. The governments employed a large number of scholars as officials in the early time of Song, which led to a complex bureaucracy and administrative system.

The Song dynasty’s official construction also reflected the rulers’ political doctrines. The complex bureaucracy, on the other hand, resulted in opposing and often aggressive political factions forming at court that, to some extent, impeded political, social, and economic progress. Also, due to the Song rulers’ vigilance against internal military pressures, the Song military was principally organised to ensure that army leaders could not threaten the central court, often at the expense of effectiveness in war. Such organisation placed the Song Empire in an inferior position when confronting threats from its invasive neighbours of the Liao and Xixia dynasty. Seemingly, Song was not as powerful as the Tang Empire. Song rulers hence presented a more modest attitude towards official construction compared to their predecessors. The palaces and temples of the royal family of the Song dynasty were of smaller scale and lesser complexity than those of the Tang dynasty and in more standardised forms. The height of the palatial buildings was further reduced. According to the text of Dongjing menghua lu, people sitting in the second level of a restaurant down the urban street could view the buildings in the royal palace.8 Even more important, the political philosophy of Song rulers encouraged the literati to participate in political life more extensively. These scholar-officials,

8 Meng Yuanlao, Dongjing menghua lu, “内西楼后来禁人登眺，以第一层下视禁中.”

177

as a particular class of premodern Chinese society, established a close tie between politics and the timber structures of official construction.

7.2 Social structure of premodern China and scholar-officials

During the Tang and Song dynasties, a specific social class, scholar-officials, played a significant role in both imperial political life and the official construction system. The political philosophy of these two dynasties, paying attention to commoners and the plethora of Confucian officials, contributed to the rise of scholar-officials. Tang and Song rulers ensured administrative stability by promoting the civil service examination system of drafting national bureaucrats by skill and merit instead of aristocratic or military position. They also supported projects that ensured efficiency in communication throughout the centralised bureaucracy. The scholar-officials, produced by these policies, devoted themselves to the administrative missions of governments. At the same time, scholar-officials actively engaged in the literary expression of royal and government buildings, which greatly expanded the political meaning of Chinese timber construction. A question to be raised when considering these merits would be: why were scholar-officials able to achieve these functions? To answer this question, we need to investigate the social structure of premodern China and the background of scholar-officials, as follows.

A harmonious and stable society is always the ultimate political pursuit of Chinese rulers. In early China, the Confucian scholars developed a theory that a social hierarchy would be the best solution to maintain a harmonious and stable society.9 They believed that a society of uniformity and equality was unrealizable, as people were different in intelligence, capacity and morality. The natural hierarchy resulted from the fact that society’s members could not all be given the same roles and treated equally. “If there is no distinction of occupation, then people will have difficulty in getting work done.”10 Society should be organised in a rational way so that each occupation is assigned with distinct jobs. Establishing an ideal society involved creating some way of ensuring that each person in society would find a suitable position, assume his duty, and satisfy his wants.

9 Xunzi 荀子, Fuguo 富国. 10 Xunzi, Wangzhi 王制, “众齐则不使.”

178

Based on the hierarchy theory, workers of Chinese society were divided into two categories according to their work types: mental and physical. The tasks of physical workers were to produce goods and to render service, and its occupations include farmers, artisans, and merchants. On the other hand, some members of society, devoting themselves to study and government administration, were intellectual workers, so-called scholar-officials. From the Han dynasty to the end of China’s last imperial dynasty Qing, these intellectual workers as politicians and government officials were appointed by the emperor of China to perform day-today political duties. They were expected to acquire virtue through the long-term study of classic literature, and then they would obtain an administrative position, where they would get a chance to show their talent, by passing the imperial civil service examination. It was believed that only talented persons were qualified to perform intellectual work, while in a general sense the physical work could be performed by average men since it needed little training. Intellectual workers were considered to contribute the most to society; hence they were highly respected. In contrast, physical workers were seen as inferior and that they should serve and support the intelligentsia, thus forming a relationship of subordination in Chinese society. The well- known Confucian philosopher Mengzi (372 - 289 BCE or 385 - 303 or 302 BCE) even offered a statement for such a relationship:

“Some workers work with their minds and some workers with their strength. Those workers with their minds govern others; those workers with their strength are governed by others. Those who govern others are supported by them, those who are governed by others support them. This principle is universally recognised.”11 “There would be none to rule the countrymen if there were not men of a superior grade. If there were not countrymen, there would be none to support the men of superior grade.”12

Mengzi’s statement suggested that workers who used their intellect were associated with governing, and the division of social members was politically oriented. Virtue was the fundamental basis for appointing officials, and only the virtuous were qualified for intellectual work and entitled to the task of governing. The well- known Confucian philosopher Xunzi suggested that:

11 Mengzi 孟子, Tengwengong shang 滕文公上, “或劳心, 或劳力; 劳心者治人, 劳力者治于人; 治于人者食人, 治人者食于人; 天下之通义也.” The text is translated by Tung-tsu Chu, see Chu, “Chinese class structure and its ideology,” 236. 12 Ibid, “无君子, 莫治野人; 无野人, 莫养君子.” The text is translated by Tung-tsu Chu, see Ibid.

179

One’s grade should be determined by his virtue, and his appointment to office should be according to his ability, making everyone assume his correct function and proper position. The men of greater wisdom should be made feudal lords, and the man of lesser wisdom should be made ministers.13

Xunzi also observed that “if a man’s virtue does not correspond to his rank, or if his ability does not correspond to his office, or if his reward does not correspond to his merit, there is no misfortune greater than this.” Confucians believed that a harmonious and stable society could be attained only when the virtuous were valued and honoured, and the wealth and reward were fairly distributed to people who deserve it. In such an orderly society, people deemed poverty and humility as indices of unworthiness and inability and shamed them. “When a country is well-governed, poverty and a mean condition are things to be ashamed of.”14

However, the actual situation of scholars was often far from the ideal pattern advocated by the Confucianists. The scholars of great virtue did not always enjoy high political status. Confucius, whose virtue was that of a sage, did not hold a political status matching his ability. In premodern China, there was no mechanism established to guarantee that a man of great virtue would occupy a high post, no matter how orderly society might be. The Han scholar Wang Chong 王充 (27 - 97) expressed this standpoint in the book Lunheng 论衡 (discussing balance):

“There is no guarantee that a person of great talent and pure behaviour will be honoured; there is no guarantee that a person of slight ability and impure behaviour will be humbled; the talented and pure may not meet with opportunity and maybe down in low positions; the incompetent and the impure may meet with opportunities and be up above others. Entrance to official career depends on grasping opportunities, and non-entrance depends on not seizing it. One who is in an honourable post is not necessarily virtuous; it is because

13 Xunzi 荀子, Jundao 君道, “论德而定次，量能而授官，皆使其人载其事而各得其所宜，上贤使之为三公，次贤使之为诸侯，下贤使之为士大夫，是所以显设之也.” 14 Analects 论语, “邦有道, 贫且贱焉, 耻也.”

180

he has grasped his opportunities. One who is in an inferior post is not necessarily unintelligent. It is because he had not met with the opportunities presented to him.”15

In reality, the distribution of status in premodern China was closely tied up with the distribution of power. Supremacy was given to the emperor, who literally had unlimited power, and his family members as nobilities shared the upper social status. The class of government officials held the de facto power of managing the empire, albeit being accountable to the royal family. The governments, both central and regional, were the source of prestige and privilege. In this way, rulers justified their privileges, to consolidate their status and power, or to rationalise their control over, and exploitation, of the ruled class. Officials held their superior social position, which was accepted by the commoners, and enjoyed the legal privileges including the exemption from corvee service and corporal punishment, and immunity from arrest and investigation without direct orders from the emperor. According to the laws of various dynasties, the punishment for a commoner who injured an official was even heavier than injuring another commoner. As Max Weber observed, “Social rank in China has been determined more by qualification for office than by wealth.”16

However, how to assess a person’s capacity and whether he should acquire a qualification and start a career as an official, is a key issue for the imperial rulers if they desire to maintain an ideal social structure. In different periods, the assessment of an official was based on distinct principles. During the Han dynasty, the civil officers were nominated based on the standard called xiaolian 孝廉 (filial respect and incorruptibility). The man who assumed his filial duties to his parents responsibly and showed an excellent degree of integrity in his community was considered deserving of an official position. Since the Wei dynasty, high positions were usually nominated based on the nine-rank system (九品中正制), and xiaolian tended to be increasingly insignificant.17 During the Sui and Tang period, both xiaolian and nine-rank systems were replaced by the system of Keju 科举 (imperial civil service examination). By the end of the Tang, Keju was established as a

15 Wang Chong 王充, Lun Heng 论衡, “才高行洁, 不可保以必尊贵; 能薄操浊, 不可保以必卑贱. 或高才洁行, 不遇退在下流; 薄能浊操, 遇, 在众上. 世各自有以取士, 士亦各自得以进. 进在遇, 退在不遇. 处尊居显, 未必贤, 遇也; 位卑在下, 未必愚, 不遇也.” The text is translated by Tung-tsu Chu, see Chu, “Chinese class structure and its ideology,” 239. 16 Weber, Gerth, and Mills, From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, 416. 17 Dong Guodong 凍國棟, “Jiupin zhongzheng zhi” 九品中正制, 414.

181

regular institution. 18 It was conducted at several levels. The capstone of the system was the palace examinations, which served not only to select but to rank those who had passed and proceeded on to the highest level of the Keju. As a system, it achieved a significant improvement in rationality and effectiveness, but not without a corresponding price: the system rewarded demonstrated ability in book learning and paid little attention to practical knowledge that lowly clerks and secretaries learned on the job. Officials mostly came from the scholar-gentry (士绅) class who had earned academic degrees by passing the imperial civil service examination. The scholar-officials were schooled in Confucian texts and statecraft, and they dominated governments and local life of China until the early 20th century.

Throughout the first half-century of Song rule, the official selection inherited from the Tang dynasty continued in place while more importance was given to satisfying offices through the examinations. Having displaced the selection systems of xiaolian and nine-rank, the Keju system now became the principal approach to achieve an office that carried the full prestige of having individually indicated one’s merit. In general, only the holders of an earned degree could gain steady advancement to the senior posts in the central government, such as the prime minister of the imperial bureaucracy. Despite the fact that a small number of officials were allowed to nominate family members without having to participate in the examinations (like Li Jie mentioned in Chapter 3), the number of such officials remained small. The non-examination background was despised, and their career opportunities were so limited that this did not become the preferred route into officialdom for men of talent and ambition. In the later Song, the recommendation privilege was extended to the point that it significantly affected the composition of officialdom, even though it could not compete in prestige with the earned degree.19

The imperial civil service examinations were held at three levels. Qualifying examinations were held at the Zhou 州 or prefectural level and were open to students of almost any background. Candidates who passed the qualifying examinations were accepted for enrolment in the county or prefectural Confucian school.20 These schools verified and guaranteed that candidates were fit to advance to the first level examinations in the prefectures. Those who passed at the prefectural level, called Xiucai 秀才, proceeded to the imperial

18 Mote, Imperial China: 900-1800, 127. 19 Ibid. 20 Zhang Xiqing 张希清, Zhongguo keju zhidu tongshi songdai juan 中国科举制度通史宋代卷, 113.

182

capital to take the second-level examinations, which were conducted by the Ministry of Rites (贡院).21 By having been certified as eligible to sit for the Ministry examinations, these candidates were called juren 举人, in Song times an honorific title that did not give them access to official appointments, although later it did in Ming and Qing times.22 Successful candidates remained in the capital to sit for the highest-level examinations. Passing the examination conducted by the Ministry of Rites marked the final stage in the Keju system, Dianshi 殿试, the examination held in the main dian building of the royal palace, with the emperor acting as a chief examiner.23 These diannshi candidates were rewarded the highest degree Jinshi 进士 and could be directly appointed as an official of the central or regional government. In particular, the candidates ranked first three in the Dianshi were named Zhuangyuan 状元, Bangyan 榜眼, and Tanhua 探花, whose names would immediately become known throughout the empire, and they could expect to advance into the higher levels of the central government much faster than others.24

The candidates passing the imperial civil service examination had a wealth of knowledge of the classics and possessed excellent writing skills. Generally, there were two main categories of Keju examinations in the Song period: the subjects of Mingjing 明经 (classicists) and Jinshi (imperial scholars).25 The Mingjing examination tested candidates by presenting phrases from the classical texts, mostly about Confucian canons. Then the scholars needed to write a paragraph to complete the phrase, which was considered an easy task at the time. Those who passed were awarded lower posts in officialdom. In contrast, the Jinshi examination tested a wide range of knowledge involving history, poems, inscriptions, discursive treatises, memorials, and the ability to compile official documents. Because the number of Jinshi graduates was so low, they were often allocated to the higher posts of governments and acquired great social standing in society. The capacity for writing poems and prose was particularly valued in the Jinshi examination, and some candidates even spent decades on expanding their knowledge and polishing their writing skills.

21 Ibid, 216. 22 Guo Peigui 郭培贵, Zhongguo keju zhidu tongshi mingdai juan 中国科举制度通史明代卷, 284; Hu Ping 胡平 and Li Shiyu 李世愉, Zhongguo keju zhidu tongshi qingdai juan 中国科举制度通史清代卷, 155. 23 Zhang Xiqing, Zhongguo keju zhidu tongshi songdai juan 中国科举制度通史宋代卷, 260. 24 Ibid, 291. 25 Ibid, 360.

183

In a traditional Chinese class structure, scholar-officials as a specific social class, played a pivotal role in arousing social vitality and mobility, especially in the Song dynasty, a golden time for scholar-officials. The Keju system encouraged upward mobility from the ranks of the common people to the ranks of officialdom. There were many ways by which poor but bright men could improve, and the Keju system, as it functioned during the Song dynasty, was able to nourish the idea that success was open to all worthy men. It also gave scholar-officials natural characteristics that helped them secure communication between the upper class, the royal family, and the lower class of commoners. On the one hand, scholar-officials were granted political status and position by the monarch who assigned them to manage the imperial administrative system at all levels of government. As the spokesmen of the monarch, their political mission was to defend the authority of the royal family. They, meanwhile, were scholars, drawn from various fields of society, and were thereby familiar with actual operating conditions of the empire.

The literary expression of Chinese architecture was realised based on the key quality of scholar-officials. Scholar-officials were considerably skilful at writing but knew little about construction and technical features. Therefore, they tended to understand the timber structures of both royal and government construction, and the architectural accommodation of Chinese political life, from the perspective of literature. Similar to the rulers, who paid attention to political functions of official construction rather than its technical features, scholar-officials attached importance to the literary presence of buildings, like a meaningful name or wall inscription, instead of the building’s physical existence. However, literature was an acknowledged communication language in the upper classes, so creating literary work with an architectural theme was very helpful for scholar-officials in fulfilling their political ambitions and doctrines. Even though the physical structures no longer survived, architectural literature could still exert an influence on political communication.

184

Conclusion

Starting from an inquiry into the political nature of Yingzao-fashi, this thesis historically contextualises sophisticated Chinese timber construction in a political discourse on premodern China. As a response to the inherent contradiction of Chinese architecture discussed in Chapter 1, a series of arguments are presented on the basis of the analysis of historical texts and paintings throughout the thesis. These arguments can be summarised as follows:

Firstly, politics was one of the underlying factors accelerating the development of Chinese timber construction, and the significance of politics in premodern China cannot be underestimated. Politics was the core driving-force of Chinese social change. Despite the vast territory and multiple cultures, premodern China, in essence, was an agrarian society where people enjoyed a sedentary lifestyle. In such a society, a hierarchical social structure produced by the bureaucratic system benefited the management and distribution of social wealth, which was required for efficient social production. A long-term stable political order, if no effective resistance was established, easily produced an excessive concentration of wealth that often induced social and political reforms to improve political order. To a large extent, the fields of technology, culture, and art were included in these reforms to achieve political agendas in premodern China. The construction system cannot be understood and interpreted in premodern China if the political factors are not considered in terms of construction. Political symbolism is embedded in the Chinese timber architectural discourse, and its significance should not be overlooked. The official construction system produced the most representative works of Chinese architecture and had a significant impact on commoners’ construction. The official building code, Yingzhao-fashi, has been studied by scholars mainly from the structural and technical points of view, but it was legislation designed to realise the agenda of political reform. Chinese rulers paid very little attention to construction techniques and professionalism and were concerned more with their buildings’ contribution to the status of their regimes rather than the construction itself. Construction standards were valued only when rulers felt there was a need to strengthen the empire by political reforms.

Secondly, the official buildings in the Song dynasty were constructed in distinct construction systems based on political status. A comprehensive understanding of Yingzao-fashi revealed that there were no specific structural types in Yingzao-fashi, and all the technical details and regulations were designed for two standardised construction systems, one serving the royal family and the other government officials. Different construction methods structurally identified these two construction systems, and for each system, the Song

185

government enacted strict regulations for specific building details and appearance that could be used to detect the political status of a timber structure. These standardised construction regulations and methods, expressed by fa, enabled builders to complete construction, even though they knew little about construction techniques. This kind of instruction was particularly acceptable for the premodern Chinese society, where people conceived their buildings more from the perspective of their political status.

Thirdly, official buildings benefited from the realisation of three political agendas: maintaining a stable and well-governed empire, establishing the supreme authority of emperors, and developing a set of bureaucratic and administrative systems to control vast territories. Official construction offered an architectural solution to realise these three political agendas. There were distinct construction systems to identify royalty and officials with different political status. The main classifications of the Chinese timber structure, diange and tingtang, should be understood as different political symbolism for expressing authority and facilitating administration. Significant royal diange buildings applying the vertical construction model attempted to symbolise monarchs’ power by huge architectural volume and magnificent appearance or to create a place (Mingtang) where the emperors could receive their mandate to rule. Government construction used the horizontal construction model, typically ting and tang buildings, to accommodate both bureaucracy and the administrative system with a focus on actual functional requirements. However, symbolism is also attached to the products of government construction. Specific tang buildings of governments, Zhengshi-tang and Du- tang, were political symbols of supreme administrative authority during the Tang-Song period.

Fourthly, the literary expression of official construction in Chinese culture and imperial history are valued more than the physical forms and structures of Chinese buildings. Hence, Chinese architecture, in particular, was closely tied to literature. The royal and governmental structures in literature were widely understood and accepted as symbols of monarchical and administrative authority. Numerous works of premodern Chinese literature, produced by scholars with an architectural theme, concentrate not on the physical characteristics of buildings but on the symbolism they bore. Through this approach, some architectural works no longer in existence could be comprehended as literary icons, thus surviving in the Chinese culture and conveying an enduring influence on Chinese political discourse. The political function of official construction was largely achieved by a unique political class of premodern China, the scholar-officials. As imperial officials, they worked and lived in buildings of official construction, dedicating themselves to national administration. Some advanced officials were often appointed to take charge of construction in capital cities and palaces, whether they had a technical background or not. As scholars, they created literary

186

works focusing on buildings of both royal and government construction. In this way, they crafted the literary realisation of the political function of official construction. However, it should be pointed out that the scholar-officials attempted to revive structures which had disappeared, through their literature, but only when they believed that such a revival would be valuable for expressing political intentions or achieving a particular political agenda.

Finally, the key conclusion of this thesis is that official construction essentially was a political instrument that the Chinese rulers used to legitimise and rationalise their governance. Both royal and the government buildings were constructed for their political utility rather than monumentality. In particular, the monarchs’ political philosophy for legitimising their authority and maintaining a mighty empire, exercised a critical influence over the political symbolism of timber structure. The contradiction of the longevity of Chinese civilisation and the ephemeral but renewable timber structure, to a large extent, could be explained by its close tie to Chinese politics. First, magnificent palatial buildings were regarded as symbols of the authority of the contemporaneous monarch. In Chinese history, most rulers of new dynasties prefered to build new structures to symbolise their reign, as their political legitimacy was established by overthrowing the previous dynasty. Consequently, it would not have been tactically wise to retain the royal buildings of previous dynasties, since they represented old symbols. Timber structure made it possible to build magnificent buildings and large-scale building complexes in a very short time. Second, despite the change of political philosophy, the political requirement for official construction, the accommodation of hierarchical society and administration, never altered. This requirement was perfectly met by timber structures in whatever dynasty of premodern China. Therefore, it is arguably the high degree of adaptability of the construction system to Chinese politics that produced the longevity of Chinese timber architecture.

187

Selected Bibliography

Atkin, Tony., Jeffrey W. Cody, and Nancy Shatzman. Steinhardt. Chinese Architecture and the Beaux-Arts. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2011.

Ban Gu 班固 (32 - 92 CE). Baihu tongyi 白虎通义 (General sense of white tiger). Shanghai: Shanghai guji chubanshe 上海古籍出版社, 1992.

—— Han shu 汉书 (Standard history of the Han dynasty, 207 BCE - 23 CE). Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company, 1990.

Barnhart, Richard M. Three Thousand Years of Chinese Painting. New Haven: Beijing: Yale University Press; Foreign Languages Press, 1997.

Boerschmann, Ernst. Chinesische architektur. Vol. 2. Berlin: Verlag Ernst Wasmuth, 1926.

Briessen, Fritzvan. The Way of the Brush; Painting Techniques of China and Japan. Tokyo, Rutland, Vt.: C. E. Tuttle Co, 1962.

Bushell, Stephen W. Chinese Art. 2nd ed. London: Board of Education, 1909.

Cai Yong 蔡邕 (133 - 192 CE). Caizhonglang ji 蔡中郎集 (Collected works of the official Cai). Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company, 1926.

Chaffee, John W., and Denis Twitchett, eds. The Cambridge History of China: Volume 5, Sung China, 960– 1279 AD. Cambridge University Press, 2018.

Chambers, William. Designs of Chinese Buildings, Furniture, Dresses, Machines, and Utensils. Wentworth Press, 2016.

Chambers, William, and Tan Chet-Que. A Dissertation on Oriental Gardening (A fanciful elaboration of contemporary English ideas about the naturalistic style of gardening in China). Printed by W. Griffin etc., 1773.

Chan, Alan K.L. “Neo-Daoism.” History of Chinese Philosophy, 3. Routledge, (2008): 303-323.

189

Chandler, Tertius. Four Thousand Years of Urban Growth: An Historical Census. Lewiston, New York: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1987.

Chadwick, Charles. Symbolism. London: Methuen, 1971.

Chen Fuhua 陈复华. Gudai hanyu cidian 古代汉语词典 (Ancient Chinese dictionary). Beijing: Commercial Press, 2002.

Chen Mingda 陈明达. Yingxian muta 应县木塔 (Yingxian timber pagoda). Beijing: Wenwu Chubanshe 文物出版社, 1962.

—— Yingzao-fashi damuzuo yanjiu 营造法式大木作研究 (Research on the major timberwork of Yingzao- fashi). Beijing: Wenwu Chubanshe, 1981.

Chen Zhen 陈振. “Zhenshitang zhidu bianzheng zhiyi” 〈政事堂制度辨证〉质疑 (Question “An analysis of the Zhengshi tang institution” ). Zhongguoshi yanjiu 中国史研究, 1, (1985): 89-91.

Chen Zhi 陈植. Yuanye zhushi 园冶注释 (Notes on Yuanye). Beijing: Architecture & Building Press (建筑工业出版社), 1981.

Chen Zhi 陈直, ed. San fu huang tu jiaozheng 三辅黄图校正 (Collation and evidential analysis of the Yellow Charts of the Three Districts), compiled no later than the eighth century. Xi’an: Shaanxi renmin chubanshe 陕西人民出版社, 1980.

Chisholm, Hugh, ed. “Code”. In Encyclopædia Britannica. 6 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press, 1911, 632-634.

Chu, Tung-tsu. “Chinsee class structure and its ideology.” In Chinese thought and institution, edited by John K. Fairbank. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1957, 236-239.

Conan, Michel. Perspectives on garden histories. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1999.

Creel, Herrlee G. Chinese Thought from Confucius to Mao Tse-tung. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953.

—— What is Taoism? and Other Studies in Cultural History. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970.

190

Crick, Bernard R. In Defence of Politics. 4th ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993, 11-18.

Ding Yao 丁垚 and Zhang Yu 张宇. “Yanjiu zhongguo jianzhu de lishi tubiao —— 20 nianhou kan yijiang” 研究中国建筑的历史图标—— 20 年后看《意匠》 (Review on cathay’s idea: a historical icon of the Chinese architectural research). Shijie Jianzhu 世界建筑, 6, (2006), 106-108.

Demieville, Paul. “Che-yin Song Li Ming-tchong Ying tsao fa che.” Bulletin, Ecole Francaise d’Extreme Orient, 25 (1925): 213-264.

Dobson, WACH. Mencius: a new translation arranged and annotated for the general reader. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1963.

Dong Guodong 凍國棟. “Jiupin zhongzheng zhi” 九品中正制 (The ninth-class official system). In Tang Jiahong 唐嘉弘, ed. Zhongguo gudai dianzhang zhidu da cidian 中國古代典章制度大辭典. Zhengzhou: Zhongzhou guji chubanshe, 1998, 414.

Dong Zhongshu 董仲舒 (179 - 104 CE). Chunqiu Fanlu 春秋繁露 (Sections about Chunqiu theory). Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company (中华书局), 2012.

Easton, David. The Political System: an Inquiry into the State of Political Science. New York: Knopf, 1953.

Ebrey, Patricia Buckley, and Maggie. Bickford. Emperor Huizong and Late Northern Song China : the Politics of Culture and the Culture of Politics. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Asia Center : distributed by Harvard University Press, 2006.

—— The Cambridge Illustrated History of China. 1st pbk. ed. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999.

Edkins, Joseph. “Chinese architecture.” Zhonguo yingzao xueshe huikan 中国营造学社汇刊, Vol.2, no.2. Intellectual Property Publishing House, (2006): 24.

Eliade, Mircea. Cosmos and History: the Myth of the Eternal Return. New York: Garland Pub., 1985.

Else Glahn. “Chinese Building Standards in the 12th Century.” Scientific American 244, 5, (1981): 162-73.

Fairbank, Wilma. Liang and Lin: Partners in Exploring China's Architectural Past. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1994.

191

Fan Ye 范晔 (398 - 445 CE), Hou Han shu 后汉书 (Standard history of the Rear Han dynasty, 25 - 220 CE). Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company, 2000.

Faure, David. “Between House and Home.” In Ronald G. Knapp and Kai Yin Lo House, Home, Family: Living and Being Chinese. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, (2005): 281-294.

Feng, Jiren. Chinese Architecture and Metaphor: Song Culture in the Yingzao Fashi Building Manual. Honolulu: Hong Kong: University of Hawai’i Press ; Hong Kong University Press, 2012.

—— “The Song-Dynasty Imperial Yingzaofashi (Building Standards, 1103) and Chinese Architectural Literature: Historical Tradition, Cultural Connotations, and Architectural Conceptualization.” PhD diss., Brown University, 2006.

Fergusson, James. A History of Indian and Eastern Architecture. London: John Murray, 1891.

Flath, James A. Traces of the Sage: Monument, Materiality, and the First Temple of Confucius. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2016.

Fletcher, Banister. A History of Architecture on the Comparative Method. 17th ed., rev. London: University of London, Athlone Press, 1961.

Fu Xinian 傅熹年. “Jieshao gugong bowuyuan cangchaobeng Yingzao-fashi” 介绍故宫博物院藏抄本《营造法式》 (Introducing the edition of Yingzao-fashi collected in the Palace Museum). Zhongguo Jianzhush Lun Huikan 中国建筑史论汇刊, 00, (2011): 17-19.

——Nancy Shatzman Steinhardt, and Alexandra Harrer. Traditional Chinese Architecture: Twelve Essays. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2017.

—— “Xinying Taoxiang Fang Songkeben Yingzao-fashi Jieshao” 新印陶湘仿宋刻本《营造法式》介绍 (Introduction of the Song Yingzao-fashi edited by Tao Xiang). In Li Jie, Yingzao-fashi 营造法式. Beijing: China Architecture & Building Press, 2007, 5-10.

—— Zhongguo Gudai Chengshi Guihua, Jianzhu Buju ji Jianzhu Sheji Fangfa 中国古代城市规划、建筑群布局及建筑设计方法研究 (Research on the design methods of Chinese cities, building groups, and architecture).2nd ed. Beijing: China Architecture & Building Press, 2015.

——Zhongguo gudai jianzhushi 中国古代建筑史 (History of ancient Chinese architecture), Vol.2. Beijing: China Architecture & Building Press, 2001.

192

Granet, Marcel, La pensée chinoise. New York, Arno Press, 1975.

Guan, Z, & WA Rickett. Guanzi : political, economic, and philosophical essays from early China = [Guanzi] : a study and translation. Rev. ed., Boston, MA, Cheng & Tsui Company, 2001.

Guo Daiheng 郭黛姮. Zhongguo gudai jianzhushi 中国古代建筑史 (History of ancient Chinese architecture), Vol.3. Beijing: China Architecture & Building Press, 2003.

Guo Pu 郭璞 (276 - 324 CE). Erya zhushu 尔雅注疏 (Notes on Erya), edited by Li Xueqing 李学勤. Beijing: Peking University Press, 1999.

Guo Qingfan 郭庆藩 (1844 - 1898 CE). Zhuangzi jishi 庄子集释 (Collected notes on Zhuangzi), edited by Wang Xiaoyu 王孝鱼. Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company, 1990.

Guo, Qinghua. “Yingzao Fashi: Twelfth-Century Chinese Building Manual.” Architectural History 41 (1998): 1- 13.

Hansen, Valerie. “The Mystery of the Qingming Scroll and Its Subject: The Case Against Kaifeng.” Journal of Song-Yuan Studies, no. 26 (1996): 183–200.

Hao Yixing 郝懿行 (1755 – 1833 CE). Erya yishu 尔雅义疏 (Notes on Erya). Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company, 2000.

Hamada Kaido 滨田恢道. “Meido seido shiko” 明堂制度私考 (The personal examination on the institution of Mingtang). Shinagaku 支那学, n.9, (1938-39), 447-476.

Haywood, John. Historical Atlas of the Medieval World, AD 600-1492. New York: Barnes & Noble, 2000.

He Jianzhong 何建中. “Shiyi Xiangyuxi —— Du Dougong de Jiegou Qiyuan yu Yingzao-fashi” 疑义相与析 —— 读《斗栱的结构、起源与〈营造法式〉》(Interpretation and analysis —— reviewing the book of the composition and source of eaves brackets and Yingzao-fashi). Gujian Yuanlin Jishu 古建园林技术, 02 (2001): 27-30.

He Shaohua 何少华. “Songdai guanyuan zhufang wenti yanjiu” 宋代官员住房问题研究 (Study on housing problems of officials in the Song dynasty), Master diss., Sichuan Normal University, 2014.

Hsingyuan, Tsao. “Unraveling the Mystery of the Handscroll Qingming Shange Tu.” Journal of Song-Yuan Studies, no. 33 (2003): 155–79.

193

Huang Zheng 黄震 (1213 - 1281 CE). Huangshi richao 黄氏日抄 (Mr Huang’s daily notes). Beijing: Dahua shuju 大化书局，1984.

Hughes, ER. Two Chinese poets; vignettes of Han life and thought. Princeton, N. J., Princeton University Press, 1960.

Hwang, Mingchorng. “Mingtang: cosmology, political order and monuments in early China.” PhD diss., Harvard University, 1996.

Ito Chuta 伊东忠太. Zhina Jianzhushi 支那建筑史 (Chinese architectural history). Kyoto: hozokan 法藏馆, 1929.

——Zhina Fojiao Shiji 支那佛教史迹 (Chinese Buddhism heritage). Kyoto: hozokan,1925.

Ito Seizo 伊藤清造. “Eizo hoshiki to Kotei saho” 营造法式と工程做法 (Construction works in Yingzao- fashi). In Shina no kenchiku, 53-67.

—— Shina no kenchiku 支那の建筑 (Chinese architecture). Tokyo: Osaka yagou shoten, 1929.

Jian Shaoyu 江少虞 (around 1131 CE). Songchao shishi leiyuan 宋朝事实类苑 (Collected assemble of Song events). Shanghai: Shanghai guji chubanshe, 2012.

Johnson, Linda Cooke. “The Place of ‘Qingming shanghe tu’ in the historical geography of Song dynasty Dongjing.” Journal of Song-Yuan Studies, no. 26 (1996): 145-82.

Keightley, David N. Sources of Shang History: The Oracle Bone Inscriptions of Bronze Age China. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985.

Knapp, Ronald G. China’s Old Dwellings. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2000.

——Chinese Houses: the Architectural Heritage of a Nation. North Clarendon, Vermont: Tuttle Publishing, 2005.

Komai Kazue 驹井和爱. Chaina kyapitaru Bokkai kenkyū 中國都城渤海研究 (Research on the Chinese capital Bohai). Yuzankaku, 1976.

194

Kwang-chih Chang and Xu Pingfang. The Formation of Chinese Civilization: an archaeological perspective, edited by Sarah Allan. Yale University Press, 2005.

Lala, Zuo. Diversity in the Great Unity: Regional Yuan Architecture. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2019.

Lasswell, Harold D. Politics: Who Gets What, When, How. Whittlesey house, McGraw-Hill book company, inc., 1936. Accessed http://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015002397050.

Leftwich, Adrian., and Alex Callinicos. What Is Politics?: the Activity and Its Study. Oxford; New York: B. Blackwell, 1984.

Legge, James. The Chinese classics: with a translation, critical and exegetical notes prolegomena, and copious indexes. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 1960.

Levi, Jean. Les fonctionnaires divins: politique, despotisme et mystique en Chine ancienne, edited by Seuil, Paris, 1989.

Lewis, Mark Edward. Writing and authority in early China. Suny Press, 1999.

Leys, Simon. “The Chinese attitude towards the past.” In The Hall of Uselessness: Collected Essays. New York Review Books, 2013, 285.

Li, Yih-yuan. “Chinese geomancy and ancestor worship: A further discussion.” In William Newell, ed. Ancestors. Hague: Mouton. Naquin, Susan, (1976): 329-338.

Li Fang 李昉 (925 – 996 CE). Taipingyulan 太平御览 (Readings of the Taiping Era). Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company, 2000.

——Wenyuan Yinghua 文苑英华 (Finest blossoms in the garden of literature). Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company, 1966.

Li Jie 李诫 (? – 1110 CE). Yingzao-fashi 营造法式 (Construction methods and standards). Beijing: China Architecture & Building Press, 2006.

Li Luke 李路珂. “Yingzao-fashi caihua yanjiu”《营造法式》彩画研究 (The research on the polychrome- painting in Yingzao-fashi). PhD diss., Tsinghua University, 2007.

195

Li Tao 李焘 (1115 – 1184 CE). Xu Zizhitongjian changpian 续资治通鉴长篇 (Extended continuation to Zizhi tongjian). Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company, 2004.

Li Yunhe 李允鉌. Huaxia Yijiang 华夏意匠 (Cathay’s idea: design theory of classic Chinese architecture). Tianjing: Tianjing Daxue Chubanshe 天津大学出版社, 2005.

Liang Sicheng 梁思成, and Wilma. Fairbank. A Pictorial History of Chinese Architecture: a Study of the Development of Its Structural System and the Evolution of Its Types. The MIT Press, 1984.

Liang Sicheng. “Babaiyunian Lai Yingzaofashi de Banbeng” 八百余年来《营造法式》的版本 (The editions of Yingzao-fashi in eight hundred years). Zhongguo Jianzhush Lun Huikan 中国建筑史论汇刊, 2011(00): 3-4.

——Liang Sicheng Quanji 梁思成全集 (Liang Sicheng corpora). Beijing: China Architecture & Building Press, 2001.

—— “Ji Wutaishan Fuoguangsi de jianzhu —— huicui zai yisi de Wei、Qi、Tang、Song de sige guli; huicui zai yidian de Tangdai sizhong yishu” 记五台山佛光寺的建筑 —— 荟萃在一寺的魏、齐、唐、宋的四个孤例;荟萃在一殿的唐代四种艺术 (Giving an account of the architecture in the Fuoguang Temple —— four isolated building cases in the temple built in the Wei, Qi, Tang, and Song dynasties separately; four kinds of Tang art forms jointly conserved in one hall), Wenwu Cankao Ziliao 文物参考资料, Z1, (1953): 76-89+91+93-121.

——Yingzao-fashi zhushi 营造法式注释 (Notes on Yingzao-fashi). Beijing: China Architecture & Building Press, 1983.

Liu, Cary. “Chinese Architectural Aesthetics: Patterns of Living and Being between Past and Present.” In Ronald G. Knapp and Kai Yin Lo House, Home, Family: Living and Being Chinese. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2005: 139-160.

Liu, Lydia He. Translingual practice: Literature, national culture, and translated modernity--China, 1900- 1937. Stanford University Press, 1995.

Liu, James TC. “The Sung Emperors and the Mingt’ang or Hall of Enlightenment.” In Etudes Song, (1973): 45-58.

Liu Daochun 刘道醇 (Song). Shengcaho minghua ping 圣朝名画评 (A review of famous paintings of the holy dynasty). Taiyuan: Shanxi jiaoyu chubanshe 山西教育出版社, 2017.

196

Liu Dunzhen 刘敦桢. Zhongguo gudai jianzhushi 中国古代建筑史 (Chinese ancient architectural history). Beijing: China Architecture & Building Press, 1984.

——Liu Dunzhen Quangji 刘敦桢全集 (Liu Dunzhen corpora). Beijing: China Architecture & Building Press, 2007.

Liu Hongtao 刘洪涛. “Kaogongji bushi Qiguo Guanshu” 考工记不是齐国官书 (Kaogongji is not an official book of the Qi State). Ziran Kexueshi Yanjiu 自然科学史研究, Vol.3,4, (1984), 359-365.

Liu Xiang 刘向 (77 - 6 BCE). Xinxu 新序 (New Preface), edited by Li Huanian 李华年. Guiyang: Guizhou People's Publishing House, 1990.

Liu Xujie 刘叙杰. Zhongguo gudai jianzhushi 中国古代建筑史 (History of ancient Chinese architecture), Vol.1. Beijing: China Architecture & Building Press, 2001.

Liu Xun 刘昫 (887 - 946 CE). Jiu tangshu 旧唐书 (Standard history of the Tang dynasty, 618 - 907). Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company, 1975.

Loewe, M. “The central government” In Twitchett, D, & M Loewe, The Cambridge History of China. Volume 1, The Ch'in and Han Empires, 221 BC-AD 220. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1986, 466- 470.

Lu Deming 陆德明 (550 - 630 CE). Jingdian shiwen 经典释文 (Interpretation on classics). Shanghai: Shanghai guji chubanshe, 2012.

Ma Bingjian 马炳坚. “ Puzuo, Chutiao, Douke and others —— Xuexi Zaji” 铺作、出跳、枓科及其它— —《营造法式》学习札记 (Eaves brackets, supporting, pedestal and others —— learning notes on Yingzao-fashi). Gujian Yuanlin Jishu 古建园林技术, 2, (2000): 15-18.

Ma Duanling 马端临 (1254 - 1323 CE). Wenxian tongkao 文献通考 (Comprehensive examination of literature). Hangzhou: Chejiang guji chubanshe 浙江古籍出版社, 2000.

Maeda, Robert J. “Chieh-Hua: Ruled-Line Painting in China.” Ars Orientalis, 10, (1975): 123-41.

Mak, Michael Y, and Albert T. So. Scientific Feng Shui for the Built Environment: Theories and Applications. Hongkong: City University of Hongkong Press, 2015.

197

Meng Hui 孟慧. “Zhongguo gujianzhu yu guwenzi guanxi yanjiu” 中国古建筑与古文字关系研究 (Research on the relationship between ancient Chinese architecture and ancient characters). PhD diss., South China University of Technology, 2005.

Meng Xiande 孟宪德. “Mingtang”明堂. In Tang Jiahong 唐嘉弘, ed., Zhongguo gudain dianzhang zhidu da cidian 中国古代典章制度大辞典 (A dictionary of ancient Chinese laws and institutions). Zhengzhou: Zhongzhou guji chubanshe, 1998, 534.

Meng Yuanlao 孟元老 (Song). Dongjing menghua lu 东京梦华录 (Dreams of splendour of the Eastern Capital). Beijing: Zhongguo huabao chubanshe 中国画报出版社, 2013.

Mizuno seiichi 水野清一. Kumo sekkutsu 雲崗石窟 (Yungang Grottoes). Kyoto: Institute of Human Sciences, Kyoto University, 1951-1955.

—— Ryūmon sekkutsu no kenkyū 龍門石窟の研究（Research on Longmen Grottoes）Kyoto: Toyo Institute of Orient Culture, 1941.

Moore, Charles A. The Chinese Mind: Essentials of Chinese Philosophy and Culture. Honolulu: East-West Center Press, 1967.

Mote, Frederick W. “A Millenium of Chinese Urban History: Form, Time, and Space Concepts in Soochow.” Rice Institute Pamphlet-Rice University Studies, no. 4, (1973): 59. Accessed 7 May 2019. http://hdl.handle.net/1911/63136.

——Imperial China: 900-1800. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1999.

Münsterberg, Oskar. Chinesische kunstgeschichte. Esslingen: Paul Neff Verlag (Max Schreiber), 1912.

Murata Jiro 村田治郎. “Manshū kenchikushi no gaiyō” 満州建築史の概要 (A summary of Manchurian architecture). Manshū kenchiku zasshi 満州建築雑誌, 8, (1928): 4.

—— “tōyō kenchiku keitō shiron” 東洋建築系統史論 (A discourse on the orient architecture). Kenchiku zasshi 建築雑誌, (1931): 45(544)-47(546).

—— kyo isaoseki 居庸関 (Juyongguan). Kyoto: Department of Engineering, Kyoto University, 1957.

198

Murck, Alfreda. Poetry and Painting in Song China: the Subtle Art of Dissent. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Asia Center for the Harvard-Yenching Institute, 2000.

Musgrove, Charles. China’s Contested Capital: Architecture, Ritual, and Response in Nanjing. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2013.

Naito Torajiiro 内藤湖南, “Eizo boshiki no shin’in bon” 營造法式の新印本 (The new printing edition of Yingzao-fashi). Shina gaku 支那学, no. 10 (June 1932): 797-799.

Nieuhof, Johan. Het gezantschap der Neêrlandtsche Oost-Indische Compagnie, aan den grooten Tartarischen Cham, den tegenwoordigen keizer van China : waar in de gedenkwaerdighste geschiedenissen, die onder het reizen door de Sineesche landtschappen, Quantung, Kiangsi, Nanking, Xantung en Peking, en aan het keizerlijke hof te Peking, sedert den jare 1655 tot 1657 zijn voorgevallen, op het bondigste verhandelt worden : befeffens een naukeurige Beschryving der Sineesche steden, dorpen, regeering, wetenschappen, hantwerken, zeden, godsdiensten, gebouwen, drachten, schepen, bergen, gewassen, dieren, &c. en oorlogen tegen de Tarters : verçiert men over de 150 afbeeltsels, na't leven in Sina getekent, 1665. Collected by Jacob van Meurs. Accessed 7 May 2019. https://archive.org/details/gezantschapderN00Nieu/page/n7

Nylan, Michael. The Five “Confucian” Classics. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001.

Pan Guxi 潘谷西. Zhongguo jianzhu shi 中国建筑史 (A history of Chinese architecture). Beijing: China Architecture & Building Press, 2008.

—— “Yingzao-fashi Xiaomuzuo Yanjiu”《营造法式》小木作制度研究 (Research on the minor carpentry in Yingzao-fashi). In Jianzhu Lishi yu Lilun Yanjiu Lunwen Ji 1997- 2007 建筑历史与理论研究文集 1997- 2007. Beijing: China Architecture & Building Press, 2007, 15.

—— Zhongguo gudai jianzhushi 中国古代建筑史 (History of ancient Chinese architecture), Vol.4. Beijing: China Architecture & Building Press, 2001.

Pan Guxi and He Jiangzhong. Yingzao-fashi jiedu《营造法式》解读 (The interpretation of Yingzao-fashi). Nanjing: Chinese Southeast University Press, 2005.

Pengfei, Ma. “Building Construction and Meaning: The Origin and the Occupation of Chinese Tingtang.” The processing of the 35th Annual Conference of the Society of Architectural Historians, Australia and New Zealand.Wellington, New Zealand, July 4-7, 2018.

Qian Zhonglian 钱仲联. Luyou quanji jiaozhu 陆游全集校注 (Notes on Luyou’s complete works). Hangzhou: Zhejiang jiaoyu chubanshe 浙江教育出版社, 2011.

199

Qiao Xunxiang 乔迅翔. “Songdai Jianzhu Yingzao Jishu jichu Yanjiu” 宋代建筑营造技术基础研究 (The fundamental research on the construction techniques of Song architecture). PhD diss., Southeast University, 2005.

—— “Yingzao-fashi Damuzuo Liaoli Yanjiu”《营造法式》大木作料例研究 (Research on the material consumption of the major timber work in Yingzao-fashi). Jianzhushi 建筑史, 01, (2012):74-82.

Qin Xianyang kaogu gongzuozhan 秦咸阳考古工作站. “Qindu Xianyang diyihao gongdian jianzhu yizhi jianbao” 秦都咸阳第一号宫殿建筑遗址简报 (Brief report on the excavation of the architectural site of palace no.1 in the Qin capital Xianyang). Wenwu 文物, (December 1976): 12-24.

Qi Xia 漆侠. Wanganshi bianfa 王安石变法 (Reform of Wang Anshi). Shijiazhuang: Hebei renmin chubanshe 河北人民出版社, 2001.

Qi Yingtao 齐英涛. “Zhongguo zaoqi jujiegou jianzhu de shidai tezheng” 中国早期木结构建筑的时代特征 (The characteristics of ancient Chinese buildings of timber structure). Wenwu 文物, (April, 1983): 60-74.

Rowland, Benjamin. “The Problem of Hui Tsung.” In Archives of the Chinese Art Society of America, 5, 1951, 5-22.

Ruan, Xing. Allegorical Architecture: Living Myth and Architectonics in Southern China. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press, 2006.

Ren Sijie 任思捷. “Tang chu Wutaishan Foguangsi de zhenzhikongjian yu zongjiao goujian” 唐初五台山佛光寺的政治空间与宗教构建 (Architecture of Politics and Religion: Mount Wutai and Foguangsi in the Early Tang). Jianzhu xuebao 建筑学报, 06, (2017): 22-28.

Ruitenbeek, Klaas., and Ban Lu. Carpentry and Building in Late Imperial China: a Study of the Fifteenth-Century Carpenter's Manual, Lu Ban Jing. 2nd rev. ed. New York: E.J. Brill, 1996.

Shen Kuo 沈括 (1031 - 1095), Mengxi bitan 梦溪笔谈 (Dream torrent essays).Shanghai: Shanghai shudian chubanshe 上海书店出版社, 2003.

Shiqiao, Li. “Reconstituting Chinese Building Tradition: The Yingzao Fashi in the Early Twentieth Century.” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 62, no. 4 (2003): 470-89. Accessed doi:10.2307/3592498.

200

Sima Guang 司马光 (1019 - 1086 CE). Simashishuyi 司马氏书仪 (Ceremonial of Sima). Beijing: The Commercial Press, 1936

—— Zizhi tongjian 资治通鉴 (Comprehensive mirror to aid in government). Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company, 1956.

Sima Qian 司马迁 (145 - ? CE). Shiji 史记 (Records of the Grand History). Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company, 1984.

Sirén, Osvald. A history of early Chinese art. London: Ernest Benn, Limited Bouverie House, 1930.

Song Qi 宋祁 (998 - 1061 CE) and Zheng Jian 郑戬 (992 - 1053 CE). Jiyun 集韵 (Collection of rhymes), edited by Zhao Zhenduo 赵振铎. Shanghai: Shanghai guji chubanshe, 2013.

Steinhardt, Nancy Shatzman. Chinese Architecture. New Haven; London: Beijing, Yale University Press; New World Press, 2002.

—— Chinese Architecture A history. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2019.

—— Chinese Architecture in an Age of Turmoil, 200-600. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2014.

Sturman, Petter C. “Cranes above Kaifeng: The Auspicious Image at the Court of Huizong.” Ars Orientalis, 20, (1990): 33-68.

Sun Dazhang 孙大章. Zhongguo gudai jianzhushi 中国古代建筑史 (History of ancient Chinese architecture), Vol.5. Beijing: China Architecture & Building Press, 2009.

Sun Yat-sen. Sun Zhongshan quanji 孙中山全集 (Sun Yat-sen corpora). Taibei: Zhongguo guomingdang Zhongyang weiyuanhui dangshi weiyuanhui bianding 中国国民党中央委员会党史委员会编订. 1973.

Szonyi, Michael. The Art of Being Governed: Everyday Politics in Late Imperial China. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2017.

Takeshima Takuichi 竹岛卓一. “Eizo boshiki no kachi: Mono o iu shiryo” 營造法式の价值 (The value of Yingzao-fashi: significant historical material). Kenchiku zashi 84. No. 1005 (January 1969): 19-26.

201

—— Eizo boshiki no kachi 營造法式の研究 (Research on Yingzao-fashi), Tokto: Chunkoron bijutsu shuppan, 1970-1972.

Tang Jinyu 唐金裕. “Xi’an xijiao Han dai jianzhu yizhi fajue baogao” 西安西郊汉代建筑遗址发掘报告 (A report on the excavation of the Han architectural sites in the western suburbs of Xi’an), Kaogu xuebao 考古学报, 02, (1959), 45-55+151-160+183.

Tan Tanaka 田中淡. Chugolu kenchikushi no kenkyu 中國建築史の研究 (Research on the history of Chinese architecture). Tokyo: Kobundo, 1989.

——“Eizo boshiki jijo kansho soshaku buben koho yakuchu (jo)” <營造法式>自序看詳總釋部分校補釋注（上） (Collation, supplement, translation, and commentary of the sections of the author’s preface, Kanxinag and Zongshi, of the Yingzao-fashi, part 1). Tobo gukuha 東方學報 72, (2000): 771-813.

The Institute of Archaeology Academia Sinica and The Pan P’o Museum Sian. The Neolithic Village at Pan P’o, Sian. Peking: The Wen Wu Press, 1963.

Tianyige bowuguan 天一阁博物馆 and Zhongguo Shekeyuan Lishi Yanjiusuo 中国社科院历史研究所. Tianyige Cang Mingchaoben Tianshengling Jiaozheng 天一阁藏明抄本天圣令校证 (Collation of the Tianshengling collected in the Tianyi Pavilion). Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company, 2006.

Tokiwa Daijo 常盘大定 and Sekino Tadashi 关野贞. Zhina Wenhua Shiji 支那文化史迹 (Chinese cultural relics). Kyoto: hozokan 法藏馆, 1939.

Tseng, Lillian Lan-ying. Picturing Heaven in Early China. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Asia Center, 2011

Tuo Tuo 脱脱 (1314 - 1356 CE). Songshi 宋史 (Standard history of the Song dynasty, 960 - 1279 CE). Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company, 1985.

Twitchett, Denis Crispin., and Brian. Hook. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of China. 2nd ed. Cambridge, England; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991.

Wang Bizhi 王辟之 (1031 - ? CE). Shenshui yantan lu 渑水燕谈录 (Talk record of swallows along Yan River). Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company, 1997.

Wang Chao 王超. “Zhenshitang zhidu bianzheng” 政事堂制度辨证 (An analysis of Zhengshitang institution). Zhongguoshi yanjiu 中国史研究 , 4, (1983): 107-109.

202

Wang Cun 王存 (1023 – 1101 CE). Yuanfeng Jiuyu Zhi 元丰九域志 (The Yuanfeng treatise of the nine regions). Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company, 1984.

Wang, David. A philosophy of Chinese architecture: Past, present, future. Taylor and Francis, 2017.

Wang Guixiang 王贵祥. “Jianzhushixue de weiji yu zhengbian” 建筑史学的危机与争辩 (The crisis and controversy of architectural history). Jianzhushi 建筑师, 04, (2017): 6-15.

—— “Zhongguo jianzhu de dianfan —— guanshi jianzhu” 中国建筑的典范—— 官式建筑 (The paradigm of Chinese architecture —— official architecture). Accessed May 1, 2020. https://chiculture.org.hk/sc/china-five-thousand-years/1115

—— “Zhongguo yingzao xueshe de xueshu zhilu” 中国营造学社的学术之路. Jianzhu xuebao 建筑学报, 01, (2010): 80-83.

Wang, Jing. The story of stone: intertextuality, ancient Chinese stone lore, and the stone symbolism in Dream of the red chamber, Water margin, and The journey to the west. Durham: Duke University Press, 1992.

Wang Pu 王溥 (922 – 982 CE). Tang-huiyao 唐会要 (Institutional history of Tang). Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company, 1955.

Wang Qihen 王其亨. “Qingdai Ynagshilei Jianzhu Tudang Zhong de Pingge Yanjiu —— Zhongguo Chuantong Jianzhu Sheji Linian yu Fangfa de Jingdian Fanli” 清代样式雷建筑图档中的平格研究 — — 中国传统建筑设计理念与方法的经典范例 (Research on plain grads of architectural Yangshilei documents in the Qing dynasty —— the classic exemplar of Chinese architectural design theory and method). Jianzhu yichan 建筑遗产, 01, (2016): 24-33.

Wang Shiren 王世仁. “Han Chang’an cheng nanjiao lizhi jianzhu yuanzhuang de tuice” 汉长安城南郊礼制建筑原状的推测 (Speculation on the original state of the ritualistic building in the southern suburbs of Chang’an city, Han dynasty). Kaogu 考古, 09, (1963): 501-515+523-528.

—— “Mingtang zhidu chutan” 明堂制度初探 (Preliminary inquiry into the format of the Bright Hall). Zhongguo wenhua yanjiu jikan 中国文化研究集刊, no.4, (1987): 1-43.

Wang Tian 王天. Gudai Damuzuo jingli tantao 古代大木作静力探讨 (Discussion on the static of ancient major timberwork ). Beijing: Wenwu Chubanshe 文物出版社, 1992.

203

Wang Yingling 王应麟 (1223 – 1296 CE). Yuhai 玉海 (Jade sea). Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company, 1984.

Wang Zhongshu 王仲殊. Han Civilization, translated by K.C. Chang and Collaborators, New Haven and London, Yale University Press, 1982.

Weber, Max, Hans Heinrich Gerth, and C. Wright Mills. From Max Weber : Essays in Sociology. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1970.

Wei Shou 魏收 (507 – 572 CE). Weishu 魏书 (Standard history of the Wei dynasty, 386 - 534 CE). Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company, 1997.

Wei Zheng 魏征 (580 – 643 CE). Sui shu 隋书 (Standard history of the Sui dynasty, 581 - 619 CE). Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company, 1997.

Weston, Richard. Utzon : Inspiration, Vision, Architecture. Hellerup, Denmark: Edition Bløndal, 2002.

Wheatley, Paul. The Pivot of the Four Quarters: a Preliminary Enquiry into the Origins and Character of the Ancient Chinese City. Chicago: Aldine Pub. Co., 1971.

Whitfield, Roderick. “Chang Tse-tuan’s ‘Ch’ing-ming shang-ho fu”’ Ph.D. diss., Princeton University, 1965.

Wright, Arthur F.. “symbolism and function: Reflections on Changan and other Great Cities,” Journal of Asian Studies XXIV, no. 4 (August 1965): 667-679.

Wu Hung. Monumentality in Early Chinese Art and Architecture. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1995.

Xiao Gongquan 萧公权. Zhongguo zhengzhi sixiang shi 中国政治思想史 (A history of Chinese political thought). Shenyang: Liaoning jiaoyu chubanshe, 1998.

Xu Bangda 徐邦达. “Qingming shanghe tu de chubu yanjiu”清明上河图的初步研究 (The preliminary research on Qingming-shanghe-tu). Gugong bowuyuan yuankan 故宮博物院院刊, I, (1958): 35-49.

Xu Bo’an. “Yingzao-fashi Dougong xingzhi jieyi tanwei” 《营造法式》斗栱形制解疑、探微 (The disambiguation and examination of the standards of eaves brackets in Yingzao-fashi). Jianzhushi Lunwenji 建筑史论文集, no.7, (1985): 54-59.

204

Xu Bo’an 徐伯安 and Gu Daiheng 郭黛姮. “Song Yingzao-fashi shuyu huishi —— Haozhai、Shizuo、 Damuzuo zhidu bufen” 宋《营造法式》术语汇释——壕寨、石作、大木作制度部分 (The terminology interpretation of the Song Yingzao-fashi for the part of the moat, stone works and major carpentry). Jianzhushi Lunwenji 建筑史论文集, no.6, (August 1984): 14-19.

Xu Bo’an and Gu Daiheng. “Diaobi zhimei qili qianqiu —— Cong Yingzao-fashi sizhong diaoke shoufa kan woguo gudai jianzhu zhuangshi shidiao” 雕壁之美奇丽千秋——从〈营造法式〉四种雕刻手法看我国古代建筑装饰石雕 (The great beauty of caved walls——examining the decorative stone carving of Chinese ancient architecture through the four carving techniques in Yingzao-fashi). Kejishi wenj ijianzhushi zhuanji 科技史文集·建筑史专辑, no.1, (October 1979): 127-142.

Xu Song 徐松 (1781 - 1841 CE). Song-huiyao-jigao 宋会要辑稿 (Song government manuscript compendium). Shanghai: Shanghai guji chubanshe, 2014.

Xu Ziming 徐自明 (? - 1220 CE). Song-zhaifu-biannianlu 宋宰辅编年录 (Chronicle of Song primary ministers), edited by Wang Rui 王瑞. Beijing, Zhonghua Book Company, 1986.

Yang Hongxun 杨鸿勋. “Mingtang fanlun: Mingtang de kaoguxue yanjiu” 明堂泛论：明堂的考古学研究 (General remarks on the Bright Hall: An archaeological study of the Bright Hall). Yingzao diyi ji 营造第一辑, (1998): 3-96.

Yang Youting 杨友庭. “Sansheng liubuzhi de xingcheng jiyi zai tangdai de bianhua”三省六部制的形成及其在唐代的变化 (The formation of the system of Three Provinces and Six departments and its changes in the Tang dynasty). Xiamen daxue xuebao 厦门大学学报 (Zhexue shehui kexue ban 哲学社会科学版), 01, (1983): 64-73.

Yao Chengyu 姚澄宇. “Tangchao zhenshitang zhidu chutan” 唐朝政事堂制度初探 (Preliminary inquiry into the institution of Zhenghsi-tang in the Tang dynasty). Zhongguoshi yanjiu 中国史研究, 3, (1982): 97-100

Yetts, W. Perceval. “A Chinese Treatise on Architecture.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 4, no. 3 (1927): 473-92. Accessed doi:10.1017/S0041977X00102915.

—— “A Note on the ‘Ying Tsao Fa Shih’.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 5, no. 4 (1930): 855-60. Accessed doi:10.1017/S0041977X00090546.

—— “Writings on Chinese Architecture.” The Burlington Magazine for Connoisseurs 50, no. 288, (1927): 116-31.

205

Ye Zhiqiu 叶知秋. “Han Wei Luoyang gucheng nanjiao lizhi jianzuh yizhi 1962-1992 kaogu fajue baogao” 汉魏洛阳故城南郊礼制建筑遗址 1962-1992 年考古发掘报告 (Archaeological excavation report from 1962 to 1992 on the ritual building sites in the southern suburbs of Luoyang, the ancient city of the Han and Wei dynasties). Kaogu 考古, 07, (2011): 96.

Zeng Zaozhuang 曾枣庄 and Liu Lin 刘琳. Quan song wen 全宋文 (Complete Song articles). Shanghai: Shanghai guji chubanshe, 2006.

Yu Deyuan 于德源. “Zhongguo gudai gaotai jianzhu chuxian zhi yuanqi ji yanbian” 中国古代高台建筑出现之源起及演变 (The origin and evolution of Chinese high-platform buildings), Shoudu bowuguan congkan 首都博物馆丛刊, 00, (2001):1-11.

Yu-Lan Fung and Derk Bodde. A Short History of Chinese Philosophy. N.Y.: Macmillan, 1948.

Zhang Rong 张荣, Lei Xian 雷娴, Wang Qi 王麒, Lv Ning 吕宁, Wang Shuai 王帅, and Chen Zhuyin 陈竹茵, “Foguangsi dongdadian jianzhu yange yanjiu” 佛光寺东大殿建置沿革研究(A study on the construction history of the main hall of Foguangsi). Jianzhushi 建筑史, 01, (2018): 31-52.

Zhang Shiqing 张十庆. Zhongri Gudai Jianzhu Damu Jishu de Yuanliu yu Bianqian 中日古代建筑大木技术的源流与变迁 (The source and flow of techniques of the major timber work in ancient China and Japan). Tianjing: Tianjing Daxue Chubanshe, 2004.

——“Cong Goujian Siwei Kan Gudai Jianzhu Jiegou de Leixing yu Yanhua” 从建构思维看古代建筑结构的类型与演化 (Examing the structural types of ancient architecture and their evolution from the perspective of tectonic thinking). Jianzhushi 建筑师, 02, (2007):168-171.

—— “Yingzao-fashi de Jishu Yuanliu jiqiyu Jiangnan Jianzhu de Guanlian Tanxi”《营造法式》的技术源流及其与江南建筑的关联探析 (The exploration of technical sources and flows of Yingzao-fashi and its relationship to timber structures in South China). Meishu Daguan 美术大观, 04, (2015):106-109.

Zhang Xiqing 张希清. Zhongguo keju zhidu tongshi Songdai juan 中国科举制度通史宋代卷 (The general history of China's imperial examination system). Shanghai: Shanghai renmin chubanshe 上海人民出版社, 2015.

Zhang Yibing 张一兵. “Mingtang zhidu yanjiu —— Mingtang zhidu de yuanliu” 明堂制度研究 —— 明堂制度的源流 (A study on Mingtang institution —— the source and development of Mingtang institution). PhD diss., Jilin University, 2005.

206

Zhao Chen 赵辰. Limian de wuhui 立面的误会 (Facade misunderstanding). Beijing: San Lien Book Store, 2007.

—— “Elevation or Façade: A re-evaluation of Liang Sicheng’s Interpretation of Chinese Timber Architecture in the Light of Beaux-Arts Classicism.” In Chinese Architecture and the Beaux-Arts, edited by Tony Atkin, Jeffrey W. Cody, and Nancy Shatzman Steinhardt. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2011, 198.

Zhao Xu 赵旭. Tangsong falv zhidu yanjiu 唐宋法律制度研究 (Research on the legal system of the Tang and Song dynasties). Shengyang: Liaoning university press, 2006

Zhao Ye 赵晔 (? - 83 CE). Wuyue chunqiu 吴越春秋 (Spring and autumn annals of Wu and Yue). Interpreted and noted by Cui Ye 崔冶. Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company, 2019.

Zhao Yushi 赵与时 (1172 - 1228 CE). Bing tui lu 宾退录 (Records written after guests leave). Shanghai: Shanghai guji chubanshe, 1983.

Zhejiangsheng wenwu guangli weiyuanhui 浙江省文物管理委员会and Zhejiangsheng Bowuguan 浙江省博物馆. “Hemudu yizhi diyiqi fajue baogao” 河姆渡遗址第一期发掘报告 (The report on the first archaeological excavation of the Hemudu site). Kaogu xuebao 考古学报, 01, (1978): 39-94+140-155.

Zheng Zhenduo郑振铎. “Qingming shanghe tu de yan jiu”《清明上河图》〉的研究 (Research on Qingming-shanghe-tu). In Zhang Qiang 张薔 ed., Zheng Zhenduo meishu wenji 郑振铎美术文集. Beijing: Renminmeishu press, 1985, 221-247.

Zhongguo kexueyuan zirankexue shi yanjiusuo 中国科学院自然科学史研究所. Zhongguo gudai jianzhu jishu shi 中国古代建筑技术史 (History of ancient Chinese architectural technique). Beijing: Kexue chubanshe 科学出版社, 1985.

Zhongguo shehuikexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo 中国社会科学院考古研究所, Xi’anshi wenwu baohu kaogu yanjiuyuan 西安市文物保护考古研究院, and Xi’anshi Qin Epanggong yizhi baoguansuo西安市秦阿房宫遗址保管所. “Epanggong qiandi yizhi de kaogu kantan yu fajue” 阿房宫前殿遗址的考古勘探与发掘 (The archaeological exploration and excavation of the front hall site of Epang Palace). Kaogu xuebao 考古学报, 2, (2005): 205-236+243-256.

Zhongguo shehuikexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo luoyang tangcheng dui 中国社会科学院考古研究所洛阳唐城队. “Tang dongdu wuzetian mingtang yizhi fajue jianbao” 唐东都武则天明堂遗址发掘简报 (The report on the excavation of Wuzetian Mingtang in the Tang East Capital). Kaogu 考古, 3, (1988): 227- 230.

207

Zhou Xueying 周学鹰. “Handai gaotai jianzhu jishu yanjiu” 汉代高台建筑技术研究 (Study on building technology of terrace in the Han dynasty). Kaogu yu wenwu 考古与文物, 4, (2006): 71.

Zhu Xi 朱熹 (1130 – 1200 CE). Zhuzi-quanshu 朱子全书 (Collected Zhu’s works). Shanghai: Shanghai guji chubanshe and Hefei: Anhui jiaoyu chubanshe, 2002.

Zhu Yian 朱易安 and Fu Xuancong 傅璇琮. Quansong biji 全宋笔记 (Complete Song notes), 2nd edition. Zhenzhou: Daxiang chubanshe 大象出版社, 2006.

Zhu Yongchun 朱永春. “Yingzao-fashi diange dipan fencaitu xintan” 《营造法式》殿阁地盘分槽图新探 (A new study on the dipan fencao illustrations of the diange framework in Yingzao-fashi). Jianzhushi 建筑师, 06, (2006): 79-82.

—— “Yingzao-fashi zhong Tiaowo yu Angting jiqi Xiangguan Gainian Bianxi”《营造法式》中“挑斡”与“昂桯”及其相关概念辨析 (The identification of the meanings of tiaowo and angting and related notions in Yingzao-fashi). Jianzhu xuebao 建筑学报, 02, (2018): 28-31.

—— “Guanyu Yingzao-fashi zhong diantang tingtang yu yuwu jigewentide sibian” 关于《营造法式》中殿堂、厅堂与余屋几个问题的思辨 (Critical discussion on some issues regarding diantang, tingtang and yuwu). Jianzhushi 建筑史, 02, (2016): 82-89.

208