Recasting Antiquarianism as Confucian Orthodoxy: Wang Zuo’s Expanded Essential Criteria of Antiquities and the Moral Reinscription of Material Culture in the Ming Dynasty

Abstract

This article examines Xinzeng Gegu yaolun 新增格古要論 (Expanded Essential Criteria of Antiquities), a connoisseurship manual compiled in 1460 by the mid-Ming official Wang Zuo 王佐. Drawing upon Cao Zhao’s 曹昭 early Ming Gegu yaolun 格古要論 (Essential Criteria of Antiquities), Wang reconfigured a manual focused on authentication and appreciation into a text structured by Confucian values and political ethics. He added ritual-oriented entries in chapters four and ten through thirteen, such as “An Examination of Song Dynasty Attire and Rank Titles” 宋制服裝入銜考 and “An Inquiry into Gold and Silver Insignia” 佩金銀牌考, reinforcing Confucian ideology through commentary on ritual institutions and the inclusion of imperial edicts and commemorative inscriptions. He also reorganized the placement of guqin 古琴, calligraphy and painting, while redefining evaluative standards to integrate material objects into moral instruction and bureaucratic discipline. In doing so, Wang reinforced a shared community of scholar–officials, using ritual hierarchy, loyalist writings, and gift exchange to respond to the uncertainty of a fractured political order. This article argues that through a non-canonical text like Xinzeng Gegu yaolun, mid-Ming scholar–officials extended Confucian discourse into antiquities, transforming antiquarian writing into a visible enactment of ethical values and collective identity.

1. Introduction

With the rise of epigraphy (jinshi xue 金石學) during the Song dynasty, knowledge of material objects was absorbed into the Confucian intellectual framework, giving shape to a tradition in which antiquities were understood as vessels of the Confucian values (qi yi zai dao 器以載道). Foundational works such as Zhao Mingcheng’s 趙明誠 (1081–1129) Jinshi lu 金石錄 (Catalogue of Bronze and Stone Inscriptions), Lü Dalin’s 呂大臨 (1040–1092) Kaogu tu 考古圖 (Illustrated Investigations of Antiquities), and Xuanhe bogu tu 宣和博古圖 (Xuanhe Illustrated Catalog of Antiquities), compiled under the patronage of Emperor Huizong 宋徽宗 (r. 1100–1126), were all dedicated to the collection and critical evaluation of ancient artifacts in order to “supplement what is lacking in the Classics and rectify the errors of earlier scholars 補經傳之闕亡, 正諸儒之謬誤” (Lü et al. 2016, pp. 2–3). These epigraphers employed excavated antiquities to challenge the Confucian canon and sought to rebuild the epistemological framework through the use of systematically illustrated catalogs (Moser 2023). Although this tradition continued through the Yuan (1271–1368) and Ming (1368–1644) dynasties, the growing cultural influence of late Ming literati in Jiangnan 江南 (literally “south of the Yangtze River”) gradually shifted antiquarian writing—both in its conceptual outlook and in its focal concerns.

In the late Ming period, the flourishing of Jiangnan’s commodity economy and the rapid growth of its cultural market fostered a new mode of object-centered writing—one shaped by personal taste and aesthetic sensibility. Representative works of this trend include Qingmi cang 清秘藏 (The Secret Collection of Elegant Objects) by Zhang Yingwen 張應文 (dates unknown), Zunsheng bajian 遵生八箋 (Eight Discourses on the Art of Living) by Gao Lian 高濂 (1527–?), and Zhangwu zhi 長物志 (Treatise on Superfluous Things) by Wen Zhenheng 文震亨 (1585–1645). These literati no longer viewed material objects through Confucian texts but rather as expressions of personal taste and refined lifestyle. In doing so, they produced guidebooks to elegant life. This shift has received sustained attention in recent scholarship. Zhuang Shen notes that antiquarian study in the Ming was defined by connoisseurship as its core concern, with aesthetic value functioning as the primary criterion, which is a departure from the evidentiary orientation of Song and Qing approaches (Chuang 1979, pp. 63–78). Li Wai-Yee argues that late Ming literati, through their collection and aestheticized handling of objects, not only pursued individual taste but also responded self-consciously to cultural identity and normative order, thereby generating cultural symbols that mediated between private preference and public morality (Li 1995, pp. 269–302). Craig Clunas, in his study of late Ming collectors in Jiangnan, systematically surveyed connoisseurial manuals—“books about things”—and demonstrated that object writing in this period was embedded in a consumption logic closely tied to literati identity (Clunas 2004, pp. 8–9). Timothy Brook, from the perspective of urban culture, examined connoisseurship as a practice through which late Ming literati enacted pleasure, play, and sensory indulgence within the city (Brook 2010). Chen Baoliang, drawing on the methods of the “new cultural history”, has explored how Ming scholar-officials fashioned refined lifestyles through objects such as the guqin古琴 (zither) (Chen 2016). These studies have greatly enriched our understanding of Ming material culture and antiquarian practice. It might even give us the illusion that Ming object-related writing and collecting behavior can be fully represented by those late Ming Jiangnan literati. However, this is not the whole story. Current scholarship tends to overlook antiquarian writings produced after the Song dynasty but before the rise of late Ming literati culture. From a geographical perspective, it often neglects regions outside Jiangnan. From a social perspective, it privileges the leisurely literati while excluding other groups.1

In terms of communities engaged in the appreciation of objects, Chen Baoliang’s distinction between scholar-officials (wen chen 文臣) and literati (wen ren 文人) highlights internal differentiations within the broader elite. By the late Ming period, owing to the emergence of a substantial group of shan ren 山人 (mountain hermits) and commoner-literati, the literati had begun to stand apart from the traditional shi-daifu 士大夫 class, forming a relatively autonomous group characterized by distinctive personalities and a detachment from political affairs and alternative lifestyles distinct from scholar-officials who simultaneously held official positions in government (Chen 2001, pp. 187–218). While existing research often conflates these two groups, their differences remain significant. The scholar-officials embodied the dual identity of Confucian scholar and state official, belonging to the elite jinshen 缙绅 (Gentry) stratum. In contrast, the literati were often lifelong commoners or only briefly served in government; most were buyi 布衣 (unofficial gentlemen) who derived their cultural standing from literary and artistic cultivation and often presented themselves as detached from worldly concerns. In fact, the boundary between literati and scholar-officials was far from absolute. Many scholar-officials actively engaged in literary and artistic pursuits commonly associated with the literati, while some literati also adopted the moral discourse typically employed by officials in their writings. Under the influence of the literati, a taste-driven, aesthetically oriented approach to material discourse gradually displaced earlier traditions grounded in epigraphy (jinshi xue 金石學). Nevertheless, a parallel strand of object-centered writing was produced by Ming scholar-officials and forms the central focus of this paper. Because of their limited number, these works have received relatively little attention in current scholarship, which tends to privilege the more abundant and aesthetically oriented writings of Jiangnan literati.

Gegu yaolun 格古要論 (Essential Criteria of Antiques; hereafter GGYL) was written by Cao Zhao 曹昭 (fl. 14th c.), a literatus from Songjiang 松江 (present-day Songjiang District, Shanghai) active in the late Yuan and early Ming periods. As he wrote in the preface, the work targeted an audience of affluent amateurs or wanku zidi 紈絝子弟 (idle sons of the elites) (Wang 2019, p. 1). GGYL originally comprised three chapters and was organized into thirteen categories covering ancient bronzes, paintings, ink traces, and the guqin. It offered information on the names, provenance, materials, and market value of objects.2 After its publication, the work circulated widely and appeared in several variant editions, including both three- and five-chapter editions. By the mid-Ming period, during the Tianshun天顺 reign (1457–1464), the Jiangxi scholar-official Wang Zuo 王佐 (fl. 15th c.) expanded the text, resulting in Xinzeng Gegu yaolun 新增格古要論 (Expanded Essential Criteria of Antiquities; hereafter XZGGYL).3 In his revised edition, Wang introduced new entries on topics such as “Agriculture and Sericulture among the People” 民生耕織, “Systems of Attire and Rank” 教令服帶, and “Architectural Systems of Song and Yuan Palaces” 宋元宮殿之製. He focused on topics such as livelihood, official attire, and architecture—interests that aligned closely with the mid-Ming scholar-officials’ growing concern with statecraft (Chu 1989, p. 10). In contrast to the Song–Yuan tradition centered on epigraphic scholarship and classical commentary and distinct from the aestheticized discourse that would later characterize the literati of late Ming Jiangnan, Wang’s approach represented a deliberate and ideologically motivated intervention. It marked a conscious effort by mid-Ming scholar-officials to extend Confucian principles into antiquarian writing by requiring that antiquities themselves be interpreted and classified in accordance with moral and ritual norms.

This article takes XZGGYL as its point of departure to examine how mid-Ming scholar-officials inscribed, circulated, and even tacitly institutionalized Confucian commitments through connoisseurial writing. It proceeds along three interrelated lines of inquiry. First, how mid-fifteenth-century Confucian thought extended into practical but unphilosophical domains; second, how such values were articulated within the fabric of a connoisseurial manual; and third, how the text served as a vehicle for scholar-officials’ self-regulation and group consolidation. Taken together, they reveal how Confucianism extended its didactic authority beyond canonical texts, transforming antiquarian compilations into a visible expression of belief and a subtle instrument of collective identity formation.

2. Confucian Foundations: Gewu Zhizhi and the Moral Formation of Wang Zuo’s Scholar-Official Identity

In order to understand the intent of XZGGYL, it is necessary to examine the ideological trends of the early and mid-Ming dynasty and the life of its compiler, Wang Zuo. Neo-Confucianism, a major branch of Confucianism after the Song dynasty, was developed by thinkers such as Cheng Yi 程颐 (1033–1107), Zhu Xi 朱熹 (1130–1200), and others. Its core proposition was gewu zhizhi, which emphasized the cultivation of virtue and the maintenance of social order through the investigation of the underlying principles of all things. Since the founding of the Ming dynasty, the Cheng-Zhu school of Neo-Confucianism (Cheng-Zhu lixue 程朱理學) was recognized as authoritative in scholarly discourse and simultaneously enshrined as orthodoxy within state institutions. However, following the Tumu Crisis in the mid-Ming period, some of the most learned and respected court officials began to reexamine and even challenge the teachings of the Song masters (Chu 1989, p. 6). As an official from Jiangxi—a province known for its Confucian tradition—Wang served for many years in the Nanjing Ministry of Justice and was influenced by its intellectual background. Thus, his compilation can be regarded as both a natural outgrowth of his personal scholarship and a scholar’s active response to the trends of the time.

2.1. Gewu Zhizhi as Object Inquiry: A Neo-Confucian Ontology of Things

As a foundational principle within Confucian philosophy, gewu zhizhi first appeared in the ancient canonical text The Great Learning (Daxue 大學). In the Song dynasty, the master Zhu Xi developed this concept and positioned it as the starting point of moral self-cultivation for scholar-officials. As he explains: “What is meant by ‘extending knowledge lies in investigating things’ is that in order to extend our knowledge, we must approach things and exhaustively explore their underlying principles” 所謂致知在格物者, 言欲致吾之知, 在即物而窮其理也 (Zhu 1983, p. 4). In this theoretical framework, gewu is the bridge between moral self-cultivation and political instruction, shaped by the belief that li 理 (principle) is inherent in all things (Ma 2019, pp. 87–97). This concept, thus, has a dual connotation. First, it is a necessary path to personal moral cultivation, requiring scholars to develop moral judgment through the investigation of things; second, it serves as the foundation of political governance and a means to maintain social stability. Therefore, when dealing with objects or antiquities, scholar-officials cannot appreciate them for pleasure.

Following the unification of the Ming empire and the official establishment of Neo-Confucianism as state orthodoxy, Zhu Xi’s Collected Commentaries on the Four Books (Sishu jizhu 四書集註) was adopted as the standard curriculum for imperial civil service examination. Its authority became firmly established, and examinees were required to respond strictly in line with Zhu’s interpretations; any deviation was viewed as unorthodox (Ren 2001, pp. 1–3). Within this ideological context, any inquiry into the essence of things could be subsumed under the category of gewu, thereby legitimizing the study of material objects as a form of Confucian practice (Peng 2009, pp. 33–35). This was reflected not only in investigations into the forms and functions of objects but also in their moral categorization and evaluation according to Confucian principles.

Although the Cheng-Zhu school remained influential, it was neither the only nor necessarily the dominant ideological current in the mid-Ming. Following the catastrophic defeat of the Ming army in the Tumu Crisis, the emotional and intellectual orientation of many scholar-officials shifted. Increasingly, they recognized that effective governance required not only moral cultivation but also practical forms of knowledge beyond the scope of Song Neo-Confucianism. In the second half of the fifteenth century, certain scholars placed greater value on knowledge that had practical utility and a tangible impact on everyday social life (Chu 1989, pp. 10–12).4 For instance, Qiu Jun 丘濬 (1420–1495), who later served as Minister of Rites and Grand Secretary, wrote Bencao geshi 本草格式 (Pattern for Herbal Medicine) to create a typology of herbs and to set rules for their collection and classification according to their medicinal properties. His contemporaries among the scholar-officials—such as Xu Youzhen 徐有貞 (1407–1472), Liu Pu 劉溥 (1410–1450), and Yue Zheng 岳正 (1418–1472)—likewise mastered the knowledge of medicine, astrology, calendrical science, water control, and canal drainage (Chu 1989, pp. 10–12).

More significantly, these scholar-officials sought to legitimize the acquisition and application of practical knowledge as an integral part of Confucian scholarly activity. Qiu Jun, for example, argued that the compilation of pharmacological treatises conformed to Confucian norms, asserting that “Confucian learning includes not only the learning of the principles of human nature, but also the learning of the principles of things” 儒者之學，不但有性理之學，而又有物理之學 (Qiu 1621, p. 33b). Neither Qiu nor his contemporaries shied away from their engagement with what was then referred to as secular knowledge, such as physiognomy and geomancy, reflecting an eclectic intellectual posture (Chu 1989, pp. 10–12). This inclination not only expanded the epistemic boundaries of Confucianism but also infused the investigation of things with more pragmatic content.

Influenced by the broader intellectual currents of his time, Wang Zuo may have undertaken the revision of the GGYL to align antiquarian knowledge with Confucian ideals. In the early Ming, Cao Zhao compiled GGYL in response to the growing interest in antiquities among newly emergent elites. The work combined two intellectual traditions inherited from the Song and Yuan dynasties: on the one hand, it continued the literati aesthetics exemplified by Zhao Xihu’s (dates unknown) Dongtian qinglu ji 洞天清錄集 (Record of the Pure Registers of the Cavern Heaven); on the other hand, it incorporated the mercantile knowledge from Baibao zongzhen ji 百寶總珍集 (Compendium of Numerous Treasures and Rarities), a commercial handbook popular in Hangzhou during the Southern Song (Hu 2018, pp. 26–39). Notably, it included little direct reference to Confucian moral teachings. Wang’s approach is significantly different. In the preface to XZGGYL, he noted: “This compilation draws from and unites two earlier editions; it is an act of gewu zhizhi” 是編合舊本二本而錄之，亦格物致知之事也 (Wang 2019, p. 4). Thus, Wang aligned his revision with Confucian ideals and extended them into the realm of connoisseurship. While Cao Zhao had focused mainly on authenticity and the market value of objects in GGYL, Wang reorganized both the structure and content to infuse the system of antiquities with Confucian principles. For instance, he quoted the Southern Song scholar Wang Bai 王柏 (1197–1274): “A junzi does not dismiss an object simply because it appears trivial; rather, he seeks to understand its essential origins” 君子之於物，不以其末而棄之，亦必求其本也 (Wang 2019, p. 320). Wang Zuo clearly agreed with this view and had already subsumed objects into the ethical framework of junzi 君子 [often rendered as “noble person” or “moral exemplar” in Confucian thought] self-cultivation. In this context, gewu zhizhi is better understood not as a method for apprehending individual objects but as a conceptual tool for reordering knowledge about the world.

Therefore, XZGGYL is not merely a systematic reorganization of antiquarian knowledge by a scholar-official but a text that reveals the intrinsic connection between the material world and Confucian belief. To understand why Wang Zuo employed Neo-Confucian as a guiding principle for his writing, one must consider the formation of his scholarly identity and the trajectory of his official career.

2.2. Moral Self-Cultivation and Bureaucratic Identity: The Career of Wang Zuo

Wang Zuo, courtesy name Gongzai 功載, was a native of Jishui 吉水, Jiangxi 江西. According to a biographical record by his fellow townsman, Minister of Personnel Wang Zhi 王直 (1379–1462), Wang Zuo was “a descendant of the great calligrapher Wang Xizhi, and the twenty-first-generation grandson of Wen Ting, Censor-in-Chief during the Tang dynasty” 王右軍之裔，唐御史大夫文庭之二十一世孫也 (Wang 1991, p. 16). His family had embraced Confucian values for generations. According to family records, “from the sixth-generation ancestor Huaixuan to his great-grandfather De Weng, including the recluse Tai Ran and his father, Master Haoxin—all valued benevolence and righteousness, and were quietly respected for their moral character” 自六世槐軒至髙祖德翁，以及先祖泰然處士、先考好信先生，皆服仁佩義，恂恂敬佩其德之 (Wang 1991, p. 16). This tradition of family ethics laid the moral groundwork for Wang Zuo’s later devotion to the Confucian values. By the mid-Ming period, his hometown Jiangxi had developed a vibrant scholarly culture and came to be a leading province in producing jinshi 進士degree-holders (Qiu 2007, pp. 38–42). It seems likely that the emphasis on Confucian values in both his family and local community led to Wang’s enduring commitment to Confucian ideals, including gewu zhihi.

In the second year of the Xuande 宣德 reign (1427), Wang Zuo obtained the jinshi degree and entered officialdom. He was subsequently appointed as a shu ji shi 庶吉士 (probationary compiler) at the Hanlin Academy 翰林院 (Yu 1989, p. 1082). Under the Ming civil examination system, which upheld Neo-Confucianism as doctrinal orthodoxy, success signified not only scholarly excellence but also rigorous training in moral hermeneutics and classical exegesis (Brook 2010, p. 149).

By this point, Wang had evidently internalized the core tenets of Confucianism. After leaving the Hanlin Academy, he served in the Nanjing Ministry of Justice 南京刑部 for more than two decades. There, he was appointed zhushi 主事 (Secretary) before 1439, promoted to yuanwai lang 員外郎 (Vice Director of a Bureau) before 1447, and came to serve as langzhong 郎中 (Director of a Bureau) sometime after 1454. Beyond his steady promotion in office, he also earned a reputation among fellow officials for his diligence and prudence. According to a local gazetteer, Wang “handled cases of injustice, saving over a hundred innocent people from wrongful execution; he was dispatched to review prisoners in Jiangsu and Zhejiang, where he overturned many judgments. Though he served for many years, he never pursued promotion rashly” 居職辦冤獄，活無辜死者百餘人，奉命錄囚蘇浙，多所平反。雖久任無躁進意 (Yu 1989, p. 1082). Such conduct reflects his consistent adherence to the principle of shen xing 慎刑 (cautious punishment), an essential aspect of ren zheng 仁政 (benevolent governance). Given the severity of penal culture and the routine use of capital punishment in the early to middle Ming (Farmer 1995, p. 9), Wang’s integration of Confucian ethical principles into judicial practice appears both uncommon and morally significant.

During his tenure at the Nanjing Ministry of Justice, Wang Zuo acquired two different five-chapter GGYL in 1456, the seventh year of the Jingtai 景泰 reign (1449–1457). One came from his friend, Li Zhuang 李莊 (fl. 15th c.),5 the other from his colleague Sun Ji 孫紀 (fl. 15th c.). Wang found both two books were unsatisfactory: one was physically damaged due to age, and the other contained excessive repetition and numerous printing errors (Wang 2019, p. 4). As an active participant in connoisseurial circles, Wang had access to a broad range of artworks and antiquities—an exposure that sharpened his critical judgment of objects.6 Motivated by personal interests and scholarly responsibility, he decided to revise GGYL with some materials that he believed “ought to be examined by Confucian scholars” 吾儒之所當考究.

However, it seems that the publication of XZGGYL encountered several obstacles. As Wang Zuo records in his preface:

The compilation began in the middle of the fourth lunar month of the seventh year of the Jingtai reign (1456), when I obtained the old editions from Lords Li and Sun. By the seventh lunar month of the same year, the work of collation and supplementation had reached completion. Nevertheless, it was not until the early fourth lunar month of the third year of the Tianshun reign (1459), when preparations for publication commenced, that the punctuation and collation was finally brought to fruition

是編自景泰七年丙子夏四月中旬，得李、孫二公舊本，至其秋七月考校增完。又至天順三年己卯夏四月上旬，欲命工梓，點校始完。.

(Wang 2019, p. 5)

By the seventh lunar month in the seventh year of the Jingtai reign (1456), Wang Zuo had largely completed his supplementation. Despite earlier efforts, the work was not published until three years after its initial compilation. Zhang Tiexian attributed this delay to Wang’s reassignment to Hangzhou (Zhang 1962, pp. 43–48). A similar view was articulated by Sir Percival David (1892–1964), the first English translator of XZGGYL (David 1971, p. liii). However, this interpretation seems to be mistaken. Both scholars misidentified Wang Zuo’s later appointment to Lin’an Prefecture 臨安府, as recorded in Gazetteer of Jishui County 吉水縣誌, mistakenly assuming it referred to Hangzhou in Zhejiang Province. In fact, it refers to Lin’an Prefecture in Yunnan. This is confirmed by Gazetteer of Lin’an Prefecture 臨安府誌 from Yunnan, compiled in the fourth year of the Jiaqing reign (1799), which records the following about Wang Zuo:

In the sixth year of the Tianshun reign (1462), Prefect Wang Zuo oversaw the construction of an Apricot Altar (xing tan) and an archery field (she pu)

天順六年，知府王佐築杏壇、射圃。.

(Long and Zhou 1949, p. 13)

This suggests that Wang Zuo was appointed Prefect of Lin’an Prefecture in Yunnan during the Tianshun reign.7

The sudden reassignment of Wang Zuo’s official duties is not explained in gazetteers or other extant sources, but it was likely tied to the mid-fifteenth-century political climate. In the first month of the eighth year of the Jingtai reign (1457), taking advantage of Emperor Daizong’s serious illness and inability to attend court, the former Emperor Yingzong launched the “Restoration of Nangong” coup (nangong fubi 南宮复辟) and reclaimed the throne. This political upheaval marked the end of Jiangxi scholar-officials’ dominance in the central government during the Jingtai reign. Chen Xun 陳循 (1385–1462), Xiao Zhi 蕭鎡 (1393–1464), and Wang Zhi, three leading Jiangxi officials at the core of power, displayed wavering stances amid the turmoil, which severely undermined Yingzong’s trust in them. Following his restoration, Yingzong quickly dismissed, demoted, or even punished them by beating and exile (Dardess 1996, pp. 179–95). This political purge extended to lower-ranking officials from Jiangxi as well, resulting in the marginalization and reassignment of many former Jingtai-era officials in the early Tianshun reign. Wang Zuo was likely among those affected.8

While serving in the remote region, Wang actively promoted the teachings of Confucius and Mencius, advanced ideals of civil governance (wenzhi 文治), and showed a strong commitment to educational and cultural development. His efforts earned him support and respect from both military personnel and civilian communities. Two stele inscriptions bear witness to Wang’s contributions in Yunnan: Record of the Reconstruction of the Apricot Altar at the Lin’an Prefectural School (Lin’an fu ruxue xinxiu xing tan ji 臨安府儒學新修杏壇記), preserved in present-day Jianshui County 建水縣 (See Figure 1) and Record of the Reconstruction of the County School in Hexi County (Hexi xian ruxue chongxiu miaoxue bei ji 河西縣儒學重修廟學碑記), located in present-day Tonghai County 通海縣 (See Figure 2).

The Jianshui inscription includes the following statement:

“Composed by Wang Zuo from Jishui, holder of the jinshi degree, zhongshun dafu, Prefect of Lin’an, and langzhong in Nanjing Ministry of Justice, temporarily serving as acting head of the ministry”

賜進士、中順大夫、臨安知府、前南京刑部郎中署部事、吉水王佐撰文。.

This inscription confirms that Wang held the fifth-rank position of langzhong upon leaving Nanjing. It also documents two major initiatives undertaken during his tenure in Lin’an: the reconstruction of the Apricot Altar (xing tan 杏壇) and the commissioning of a commemorative image honoring the teachings of the sages.

The Hexi inscription contains the following attribution:

“Composed by Wang Zuo from Jishui, holder of the jinshi degree, zhongshun dafu, Yunnan Lin’an… langzhong in the Nanjing Ministry of Justice”

賜進士出身、中順大夫、雲南臨安□□□南京刑部郎中王佐。.

Although partially damaged, the illegible portion—comprising three missing Chinese characters—can be reasonably reconstructed as zhufu 知府 and qian 前, based on comparison with the Jianshui inscription. Both inscriptions confirm Wang Zuo’s leadership in the restoration of Confucian temple schools and offer corroboration of the account found in the Gazetteer of Ji’an Prefecture.11

Unlike the elegant and leisure-oriented literati of Jiangnan, Wang Zuo remained a lifelong official who never strayed from his Confucian convictions. During his tenure at the Nanjing Ministry of Justice, he upheld the principle of the heart of compassion (ceyin zhi xin 惻隱之心) by redressing unjust verdicts. In the southwestern frontier, he implemented benevolent governance and sponsored the construction of Confucian temples—acts that clearly reflected his strict adherence to Confucian ideals. This reverence for Confucianism naturally permeated his antiquarian writing. As he states at the very beginning of XZGGYL, “this is an act of gewu” 亦格物致知之事. In his hands, private connoisseurship became not a matter of pleasure but part of a broader Confucian effort to cultivate the self.

3. Rewriting Antiquarian Knowledge: Confucianization and Moral Revaluation in XZGGYL

The Dutch sinologist Robert van Gulik (1910–1967) once observed that there is no such thing as complete originality in Chinese literary works on connoisseurship (Clunas 2004, p. 28). Indeed, most connoisseurial texts from the Song and Yuan periods drew heavily on earlier sources without offering proper citation or acknowledgment. By contrast, Wang Zuo listed the sources he consulted in the preface of XZGGYL, including Shilin guangji 事林廣記 (Vast Record of Varied Matters), Ouyang Xiu’s 歐陽修 (1007–1072) Yanpu 硯譜 (Inkstone Manual), Tao Zongyi’s陶宗儀 (fl. 14th c.) Shushi huiyao 書史會要 (Essential Compendium of Calligraphy History), and Xia Wenyan’s 夏文彥 (fl. 14th c.) Tuhui baojian 圖繪寶鑒 (Precious Mirror of Painting) (Wang 2019, p. 5).12

Moreover, Wang devised a clear textual apparatus to distinguish his contributions. As he explains:

“For continued additions to existing entries, I note ‘hou zeng’ (later addition); for entirely new entries, I note ‘xin zeng’ (new addition), or simply ‘zeng’ (addition). The original text is left unmarked”

其續增者，注曰“後增”。其新增者，注曰“新增”，或只注“增”字。舊本則不注。.

(Wang 2019, p. 5)

Accordingly, entries that were modified or expanded from either of the two earlier GGYL editions are marked hou zeng 後增, while entirely new entries absent from both are labeled xin zeng 新增 or zeng 增. A close examination of the complete text confirms the consistent application of these principles. Of the 594 entries in total, 399 are labeled xin zeng and 55 hou zeng, resulting in 454 entries that were either newly introduced or augmented by Wang (See

Table 1. Summary of entries marked as xin zeng and hou zeng in XZGGYL13.

Chapter	Part	xin zeng	hou zeng	xin zeng and hou zeng	Total
Chapter 1	Ancient zithers Guqin 古琴論	6	2	8	14
Chapter 2	Ancient calligraphy(A) 古墨蹟論(上)	0	1	1	5
	Ancient tablets and rubbings 古碑法帖	20	1	21	22
Chapter 3	Ancient calligraphy(B) 古墨蹟論(下)	14	7	21	33
	The stones tablets of Shaanxi 新增陝西碑帖	35	0	35	35
	Tablets in various places 新增各地碑帖	154	0	154	154
Chapter 4	Inscription on metal and stone 金石遺文	3	0	3	3
	Essay of the Song dynatsy 宋金石遺文	15	0	15	15
	Colophons on rubbings 法帖題跋	30	0	30	30
Chapter 5	Ancient painting 古畫論	20	13	33	48
Chapter 6	Precious objects 珍寶論	2	8	10	48
	Ancient bronzes 古銅論	0	1	1	8
Chapter 7	Ancient ink-stines 古硯論	6	0	6	19
	Rare stones 異石論	3	5	8	21
	Ancient porcelain 古窯器	0	3	3	17
Chapter 8	Ancient lacquer 古漆器	0	4	4	6
	Ancient textles 古錦論	0	1	1	10
	Rare woods 異木論	5	9	14	19
	Bamboo 竹論	1	0	1	2
Chapter 9	Studio objects 文房論	27	0	27	27
Chapter 10	Epilogues to imperial patents 古今誥敕題跋	30	0	30	30
Chapter 11	Miscellaneous(A) 雜考(上)	7	0	7	7
Chapter 12	Miscellaneous(B) 雜考(中)	9	0	9	9
Chapter 13	Miscellaneous(C) 雜考(下)	2	0	2	2
	Account of the palaces of Song dynasty 宋宮殿記	10	0	10	10
Total		399	55	454	594
Proportion		67.17%	9.26%	76.43%	100%

).

As shown in Table 1, entries marked as xin zeng account for 67.17% of XZGGYL, whereas hou zeng constitutes 9.26%. Combined, these supplemented entries make up 76.43% of the text—an overwhelming majority. This distribution indicates that Wang Zuo introduced supplementary material across all categories, with the most significant expansions occurring in sections devoted to inscriptions and epigraphy. Chapters three and four, in particular, consist almost entirely of new material. Due to the substantial number of steles in Shaanxi 陝西 and other regions, the text contains 238 entries on calligraphy- accounting for nearly 40% of the whole book. Notably, chapters four and ten through thirteen are particularly dense, covering colophons, inscriptions on bronzes and stones, and colophons composed by senior scholar-officials, amounting to 117 entries in total, or approximately 19.5% of the work.

These patterns of supplementation were not arbitrary. In XZGGYL, Wang Zuo restructured the connoisseurial text around Confucian principles by adjusting the placement of specific items, expanding object categories and content, and modifying the standards of evaluation. This was not only a Confucian reinterpretation of object study by a mid-Ming scholar-official but also an attempt to construct a connoisseurial discourse more closely aligned with the officials’ worldview.

3.1. Reordering Material Hierarchies: Ritual Logic and Confucian Classification

Compared to Cao Zhao’s original work, XZGGYL exhibits significant changes in the classification and sequencing of objects. These modifications were not simply improvements for better readability; rather, they reflect Wang Zuo’s internalization of ritual order as a guiding principle in the textual organization. As he states in the preface:

The two earlier editions differed in their arrangement of categories. I hold that nothing is more ancient than the guqin and calligraphy, and they should be scholars’ foremost concern. I have therefore corrected this by placing the guqin and calligraphy at the beginning, and by moving painting to follow the sections on inscriptions on bronze and stone, as well as colophons appended to model calligraphy

二本目錄，始末不同。佐謂物莫古於琴、書，在學者所當先務。今是正之，以琴、書列於卷首，而以畫次於金石遺文、法帖題跋之後雲。.

(Wang 2019, p. 4)

Here, Wang Zuo outlines two major structural changes he made in comparison to GGYL. First, he repositioned the sections on the guqin (zither) and calligraphy at the beginning. Second, he placed the section on painting after those on inscriptions on bronze and stone, as well as colophons attached to model calligraphy. It is worth noting that the phrase “zheng zhi” 正之 (corrected this) reveals his value judgment. In his opinion, GGYL’s original structure does not respect the ritual principles, and it is necessary to correct it.

First, Wang Zuo’s respect to the guqin reflects the close connection between Confucian philosophy and the music. In the chapter “Record of Music” (Yueji 樂記) of the Book of Rites (Liji 禮記), music is portrayed as the embodiment of cosmic harmony, ranked even above ritual, which represents terrestrial order. The text asserts: “Music is created by Heaven; ritual is determined by Earth” 樂由天作，禮以地制, and further notes, “Through harmony, all things undergo transformation; through order, the multitude of things is properly distinguished” 和故百物皆化，序故群物皆別 (Van Gulik 1940, p. 23). The guqin is not only of ancient origin and legitimate lineage but also deeply associated with Confucian sages. It symbolizes the cultivated personality and ethical practice of the ideal scholar-official. If model calligraphy, imperial edicts, and colophons represent the textual and institutional dimensions of ritual, then the guqin as music rightly occupies a superior position—serving as the starting point for self-cultivation and the foundational source of cultural order for the Confucian elite.

Second, Wang Zuo’s decision to place the painting after the entries on inscriptions in bronze and stone, as well as colophons appended to model calligraph, marks a clear departure from the prevailing conventions of earlier connoisseurial texts—such as GGYL and Dongtian qinglu ji—which typically treated painting and calligraphy as equally important, if not privileging painting. It shows that the scholars held a cautious attitude toward painting. Perhaps in Wang’s opinion, inscriptions on metal and stone were mostly related to the legacy of loyal officials and the transmission of ritual tradition. Not only could they corroborate the historical record, but they could also embody and transmit Confucian principles. Painting is pleasing to the eye, but because of its tendency to amuse the senses, it struggles to bear the weight of moral instruction and is easily dismissed as mere sensual entertainment, far removed from the ideals of scholar-officials.14

In sum, these structural shifts demonstrate how Wang Zuo rearranged the categories of XZGGYL into a moral and ritual hierarchy based on Confucian ideology. By elevating the guqin and calligraphy and by subordinating painting to epigraphic and textual materials, he made a framework through which objects were to be ranked and interpreted. Wang Zuo’s editorial intervention inscribed ritual authority into the textual structure of object categories, affirming that the genuine value of material culture resided not in sensory attraction but in the ability to convey Confucian principles.

3.2. Extending Antiquarian Boundaries: Ritual and Political Supplementation

Nearly seventy percent of the content in XZGGYL was newly added by Wang Zuo. His additions extended beyond the traditional scope of antiquarian collecting to include a substantial number of ritual-related categories. The hierarchical order of the Ming empire was extraordinarily intricate, and this complexity was visually manifested in a wide range of material forms: the attire of officials, the objects they carried, the emblems displayed on banners, the decorative elements of ceremonial vehicles, and the ritual vessels used in ancestral offerings (Moser 2023, p. 3). In response, Wang Zuo introduced numerous new entries in XZGGYL to document and codify these elements, such as the “Imperial Heirloom Seal” (chuanguo yuxi 傳國玉璽), “Iron Certificates of Merit” (gongchen tiequan 功臣鉄券), “Edicts and Regalia” (jiaoling fudai 教令服帶), and “Purple-Gold Fish Pouches” (zijin yudai 紫金魚帶), as well as entries on “[Thing related to] People’s Livelihood, Farming, and Sericulture”(minsheng gengzhi zhi shi 民生耕織之事) and the “Architectural Systems of Song and Yuan Palaces” (song yuan gongdian zhi zhi 宋元宮殿之制). Through systematic supplementation and structural reorganization, Wang transformed a manual once focused on authentication into a text that embodied political instruction and historical memory—an imagined ritual space directed toward Confucian moral cultivation. For instance, in the entry “An Examination of Song Dynasty Official Dress and Its Integration with Bureaucratic Hierarchy” 宋制服飾入銜考, Wang writes:

After Emperor Gaozong of Song relocated the court to the south, bureaucratic order gradually declined, and inconsistencies in institutional memory became increasingly pronounced. Some officials had already become close confidants of the emperor. However, they had not yet been promoted to the rank of the “Eight Seats” (bazuo)—[senior posts at the central governance]. According to official regulations, such figures were entitled only to gold belts (jindai) and were not permitted to wear fish-shaped tally pouches (yudai). Nevertheless, upon receiving titles or honors, they were often granted purple-gold fish pouches (zijin yudai), which they did not dare refuse or remove. These cases exemplify a broader phenomenon of borrowed ceremonial forms: individuals who lacked formal entitlement to the regalia of high office nonetheless received its symbols, thereby setting precedents in which name and reality diverged—contributing, in turn, to the erosion of institutional clarity. Although appointments and promotions were typically issued through edicts from the Central Secretariat or by the Ministry of Personnel, such documents often followed inherited templates without proper verification. As a result, they ceased to be critically examined, and scholar-officials gradually abandoned the collective practice of scrutiny

高宗南渡而後，掌故散訛之失也。又有位登法從而未至八座者，於法止賜金帶，不覆佩魚，而每於官職封賜金銜，猶帶賜紫金魚袋，被賜者亦不敢削去，則是借服本有佩魚不得入銜，賜袋雖無佩魚，迺循誤例，名實有無，於是舛矣。蓋凡除授，率中書關尚書賜敕，或下天官給告，因襲前此，不覆檢核，士大夫亦忽而不考雲。.

(Wang 2019, pp. 348–49)

Because outdated precedents continued to be followed without critical examination, the hierarchical system of official attire gradually fell into disarray. Consequently, most scholar-officials failed to recognize these irregularities, and few initiated systematic inquiries to investigate or rectify them. Wang Zuo criticized this negligence and took it upon himself to restore proper order by incorporating his investigation results into XZGGYL. This indicates that what Wang sought to ge 格 (investigate) extended beyond antiquities in the narrow sense to encompass both ancient texts (guwen 古文) and ancient institutions (guzhi 古制).

In an essay titled “Qiaolou huajiao san nong ji” 譙樓畫角三弄記 in XZGGYL, Wang writes:

Nowadays, some subprefectures and counties maintain towers from which drums and horns are sounded, but such installations should only exist at the prefectural level and above. For subordinates lacking delegated regional authority to construct drum-and-horn towers constitute an act of usurpation

今州郡有樓以置鼓角，必會府而後可，非受方面之任而置鼓角，皆僭也。.

(Wang 2019, p. 381)

Wang Zuo’s warning against overstepping established norms reflects his sensitive awareness of custom and hierarchical order. This effort at restating things is consistent with Zhu Xi’s interpretation of gewu zhizhi. As Zhu explained, “Pitch pipes and calendars, penal codes, astronomy, geography, military affairs, and administrative offices—all must be studies. If one wishes to plumb principles, one cannot neglect them” 律歷、刑法、天文、地理、軍旅、官職之類，都要理會。若欲窮理，亦不可以不講 (Li 1986, p. 2831). Influenced by Neo-Confucianism, Wang incorporated materials on the architectural standards of palace construction, the hierarchical ranks of official attire, and the ritual implements used in state sacrifices, thereby reconfiguring XZGGYL into more than a technical connoisseurship manual. His engagement with ritual was not conservative regression but a practical extension of Confucian thought into the domains of statecraft after the Tumu Crisis.

Furthermore, he expanded the scope of what could be ge (investigated) to include colophons and imperial edicts authored by earlier Confucian scholars—an effort that not only reflected his moral convictions but also signaled his response to the fractured political order and ethical anxieties of his time. XZGGYL was compiled during the Jingtai and Tianshun reigns. As a scholar-official who lived through the mid-Ming period, Wang Zuo witnessed the power struggle between Emperor Yingzong 英宗 (r. 1435–1449, 1457–1464) and Emperor Daizong 代宗 (r. 1449–1457), particularly the ritual controversies that unfolded in the wake of the Tumu Crisis and in the lead-up to the “Restoration of Nangong” (Brook 2010, pp. 95–100). Both of these major mid-Ming events were deeply entangled with the expanding influence of inner-court eunuchs—an issue that generated widespread anxiety among scholar-officials. This anxiety is also palpable in XZGGYL, where Wang Zuo deliberately included colophons to imperial edicts written by earlier Confucian exemplars. Many of these writings condemn the political consequences of entrusting power to “petty men” (xiaoren wuguo 小人誤國), offering implicit warnings to the throne and reaffirming the moral responsibility of loyal ministers. Within Wang’s text, the figures of the “petty man” and the “worthy minister” emerge as a deeply moralized binary. For example, he cites Yang Shiqi’s 楊士奇 (1366–1444) annotation following the appointment certificate of Huang Jianfa (dates unknown) 跋黃檢法告身後:

“Alas! To favor petty men and estrange virtuous ministers—was not the fall of the Song already inevitable? Must one wait for the future to recognize it? This is what I find most lamentable”

嗚呼！親小人，遠賢臣，宋之不覆振，豈待他日而後見哉？此余所以為深慨者也。.

(Wang 2019, pp. 312–14)

In another colophon to an imperial edict issued by Emperor Gaozong of the Song 宋高宗 (r. 1127–1162), Yang writes:

“The flourishing of the state depends on the collective efforts of many gentlemen, whereas its downfall may be brought about by the actions of a single petty man”

天下國家以眾君子興之而不足，以一小人敗之而有余。.

(Wang 2019, pp. 310–11)

Although framed as commentary from earlier scholars, these historical judgments convey Wang Zuo’s implicit critique of the political conditions in which he lived. Through such citations, he subtly admonishes the present, reaffirming the scholar-officials’ commitment to an idealized political order and expressing disillusionment with the fractured ritual order.

Beyond the threat posed by petty men, another recurring concern in Wang Zuo’s work is the anxiety provoked by Mongol incursions and persistent instability along the northern frontier. To rekindle among scholar-officials a collective memory of patriotic service, he included numerous writings on renowned Southern Song loyalists who had resisted the Jurchen, such as Yue Fei 岳飛 (1103–1142), Lü Yihao 呂頤浩 (1071–1139), and Zhang Jun 張浚 (1097–1164). One example is his citation of Wang Yi’s 王禕 (1322–1373) “Postscript to the Imperial Letter Bestowed upon Yue Fei by Emperor Gaozong” 跋宋高宗賜岳飛手劄, which recounts Yue Fei’s military achievements and loyalty in response to imperial orders to reinforce Luzhou 廬州. Wang introduces the passage with the following commentary:

The relationship between rulers and ministers is inherently delicate. During a time of continuous unrest, Emperor Gaozong of Song relied heavily on Yue Fei. Had he not died, would the Central Plains have fallen? Would the emperor have been compelled to accept a strategy of limited security, ruling from a limited base in the South?

君臣之際難矣！方天下多故，高宗之於武穆，倚藉之如此。使其不死，中原豈有淪沒，主空當至幹偏安乎？.

(Wang 2019, pp. 302–3)

Wang Yi then concludes with a lament: “Indeed, Yue Fei’s death resulted from the Heaven. How could I blame his lord” 然則武穆之死，天實為之，吾於其君何尤焉 (Wang 2019, pp. 302–3)? This musing betrays remorse over Yue Fei’s tragic fate and implicitly acknowledges political misjudgment in the downfall of the Song dynasty. The inclusion of this passage by Wang Zuo is, therefore, by no means accidental. In a mid-Ming context, it might be taken as a measured commentary on Emperor Yingzong’s overreliance on court eunuchs and his risky northern campaign—choices that ended with his capture by Mongol forces.15

Wang Zuo reinforced loyalist virtue by compiling admonitory materials and incorporating the voices of upright officials, thereby highlighting a long-standing shi 士 tradition of moral protest and loyal sacrifice. This suggests that his goal was not merely to amend the shortcomings of the earlier five-chapter Gegu yaolun. Rather, he was constructing a textual space in which scholar-officials could embody the ideal of gewu zhizhi and affirm their political convictions.

3.3. Moralized Objects: Replacing Aesthetic Value with Ethical Judgment

In addition to expanding content and reordering object categories,, Wang Zuo’s Confucian reconfiguration is also evident in his evaluative perspective on objects. He emphasized the ethical significance and historical associations of objects, especially those that could speak to the concerns of his own time. This orientation applied not only to the antiquities themselves but also to those who collected them.

A comparative reading of XZGGYL and earlier work makes this shift in evaluative focus especially clear. Jade, classified under “Precious Treasures” (zhenbao lun 珍寶論), was traditionally described in earlier works in terms of material quality, production area, and rarity. For example, in GGYL, Cao Zhao included five entries on jade, focusing on its physical characteristics and economic value: jade implements 玉器, ancient jade 古玉器, sandy jade 沙子玉, jar jade 罐子玉, and jade-like stones 石類玉 (David 1971, pp. 317–18). While retaining these, Wang introduced a new entry titled “Names of Jade” (yuming 玉名), in which he cataloged ritual jades such as the gui 圭, bi 璧, cong 琮, and huang 璜. He further paired these items with citations from a Confucian classic, Rites of Zhou (Zhouli 周禮), to explain their ceremonial uses and symbolic meanings:

Yu the Great was conferred a xuan gui 玄圭 (a black jade scepter), whose color symbolized water. The gui 圭, formerly written as “珪,” is an auspicious jade artifact. Its form is rounded at the top and squared at the bottom, symbolizing the unity of heaven and earth; it was employed in the investiture of feudal lords. The bi璧 is a circular jade object, with its outer roundness representing heaven and its inner squareness representing earth. The cong 琮 is an auspicious jade artifact, approximately eight inches in height and shaped like the hub of a chariot wheel. According to Rites of Zhou, a yellow cong was used in sacrifices offered to the Earth. The zhang 璋 constitutes half of a gui. As recorded in Rites of Zhou, a red zhang was used to perform sacrifices to the south, symbolizing the flourishing of life during summer. The hu 琥 is an auspicious jade artifact. According to Rites of Zhou, a white hu, shaped in the form of a tiger, was used in sacrifices to the west, where its fierce form symbolized the austere spirit of autumn. The huang 璜 is half of a bi. According to Rites of Zhou, a black huang was employed in rituals dedicated to the north, symbolizing the closure and concealment of life, when the earth lay barren and only half the heavens were visible. The heng 珩, dang 璫, pei 珮, and huan 環 are all types of jade ornaments worn on the body. The hu 瑚 and lian 璉 are jade vessels used in ancestral temple rituals during the Yin [Shang] dynasty. The cong 璁 refers to a stone that closely resembles jade. Wufu 珷玞 denotes stones that resemble jade in appearance but differ in substance. In the state sacrifices of the present dynasty [the Ming dynasty], a blue-green bi 蒼璧 is used for offerings to Heaven, a yellow cong for offerings to Earth, and a blue-green bi again for offerings made to Renzu 仁祖 [the father of Zhu Yuanzhang, who was the founding emperor of the Ming dynasty]

禹玄圭，象水色。圭，古作珪，瑞玉也。上圓下方、以象天地，以封諸侯。璧，圓玉。外圓象天，內方象地。琮，瑞玉，八寸，形似車缸，《周禮》以黃琮禮地。璋，半珪。《周禮》以赤璋禮南方，象夏物榮盛。琥，瑞玉。《周禮》以白琥禮西方，為虎形，虎猛，象秋聲。璜，半璧。《周禮》以玄璜禮北方，象多閉藏，地上無物，惟天半見也。珩、璫、珮、環俱佩玉。瑚璉，殷宗廟玉器。璁，石次玉者。珷玞，石似玉者。國朝郊祀天用蒼璧，祀地用黃琮，祀仁祖配天用蒼璧。.

(Wang 2019, pp. 197–98)

This passage vividly depicts the role of jade artifacts within state sacrificial rites. This orientation toward mobilizing objects as vehicles for Confucian values reflects his broader commitment to gewu zhizhi as a structuring principle, one that positions antiquities in the Confucian framework.

Beyond reinterpreting objects themselves, Wang Zuo also sought to discipline the evaluative logic of collectors. He cites Wang Luzhai’s guidelines for assessing stele inscriptions:

A true lover of antiquity should first consider whether the individual in question is worthy of respect, then whether the event is worth remembering, and only after that whether the calligraphy merits imitation. If none of these qualities are present, then age alone does not make the inscription worthy of respect

好古者先當以其人之可尊，次當以其事之可傳，又其次始以其字之可法耳，三者咸無焉，雖古不足貴也。.

(Wang 2019, p. 151)

Building on this principle, he challenged the conventional connoisseurial standard that “rarity determines value” (wu yi xi wei gui 物以稀為貴), a notion prominently featured in earlier works such as GGYL and Baibao zongzhen ji. Instead of measuring worth by age, refinement, or scarcity, Wang argued that objects should be valued according to the moral virtue they embody, the historical events they preserve, or the artistic excellence they display. Through this tripartite evaluative framework—virtue, deed, and art—Wang shifted the standard of judging objects from their beauty and market value to their connection with Confucian moral values. This is unmistakably the perspective of a scholar-official, sharply opposed to the judgments of Jiangnan literati, whose tastes were deeply shaped by the commodity culture.

While Wang Zuo regarded calligraphy as highly important and accordingly placed it near the beginning of the text, after the section on the guqin, he nevertheless approached it with the same moral scrutiny and restraint that governed his treatment of other cultural pursuits. He quotes an imperial prince, Zhu Youdun 朱有燉 (1379–1439), who warned:

In my humble view, calligraphy is a minor art. It does not warrant excessive attention.

At most, it may serve as a vehicle for expressing one’s feelings. Yet even those who devote themselves to its study must remain aware of this limitation

愚以為書學之工，亦小道耳，誠不必畱意於此，要當寓意以適情興，志於臨池之學者又當知之。.

(Wang 2019, p. 27)

Although calligraphy was highly esteemed among scholar-officials, Wang Zuo insisted that it should not become a source of obsession. Instead, he argued, one’s efforts should be devoted to cultivating virtue, refining scholarship, and governing the state. This ethical stance is further evident in his critique of Emperor Huizong of Song, a ruler famous for his artistic brilliance:

Emperor Huizong ruled at a time when the state was prosperous and the military strong, yet he gave himself over completely to extravagant pleasures, which only intensified over time. In the end, he brought disgrace upon himself, lost his empire without showing any remorse, and died in the northern deserts. In my view, this was a fitting outcome. Therefore, I have included it here as a warning to future rulers about the dangers of excessive luxury and uncontrolled desire

徽宗當國富兵強之時，肆窮極侈靡之欲，日增月盛，以致辱身喪國而不知悔，其死朔漠也宜矣。吾故索聯書於此，以為後世人主窮奢極欲者戒。.

(Wang 2019, p. 360)

This is not the voice of an art lover but of a moralist. Wang Zuo adopts the tone of remonstrance typical of scholar-officials and, therefore, takes moral instruction rather than connoisseurial ability as the fundamental criterion for evaluating collectors.

Viewed in this light, XZGGYL is no longer a manual for connoisseurship; rather, Wang Zuo recasts it as a textual embodiment of his gewu zhizhi ideal and a discursive space for Confucian belief. The progression from “appreciate objects” to “understanding objects” and, ultimately, to “embody Confucian principles” illustrates how middle Ming scholar-officials applied Neo-Confucian principles to the classification and interpretation of objects.

4. Consolidating Scholar-Official Community: Network, Identity, and Confucian Solidarity in XZGGYL

During the middle Ming period, several scholar-officials involved themselves in learning that had tangible and observable effects on the daily life of society (Chu 1989, pp. 10–11). Within this intellectual milieu, XZGGYL functioned as a project to forge communal identity, reinforce social order, and articulate Confucian values. As Clunas has observed in his study of Zhangwu zhi, the text was intended to sustain a shared sense of elegant taste and cultural identity among the Jiangnan literati (Clunas 2004, pp. 166–73). Similarly, XZGGYL can be seen as a parallel project: it was written for Confucianism and addressed to scholar-officials.

4.1. Asserting Confucian Orthodoxy: Scholar-Officials and Moral Authority in the Mid-Ming Crisis

In the preface to XZGGYL, Wang Zuo explicitly invokes the term ru 儒 (Confucians) on two occasions. The first states: “The Four Treasures of the Studio are essential to the daily life of any Confucian scholar” 文房四寶，皆儒生日用而不可缺其一者. The second reads: “The formats and colophons of mandates and decrees of emperors from the Tang and Song onward, and the handwriting and signatures of the leaders of these times, are all appropriate objects of study for us Confucians” 唐宋以來，誥敕體式題跋，先正書押，皆吾儒之所當考究. Taken together, these references make clear that Wang did not treat objects solely through a lens of utility or aesthetic pleasure but rendered the work both legible to and formative for the Confucian community.

Wang Zuo composed XZGGYL amid the intense mid-Ming power struggle between eunuchs and civil officials. In the early years of the Zhengtong 正統 reign (1436–1449), court politics were dominated by a group of senior scholar-officials collectively known as the “Three Yangs” 三楊—Yang Rong 楊榮 (1372–1440), Yang Shiqi 楊士奇 (1366–1444), and Yang Pu 楊溥 (1372–1446)—while the Empress Dowager presided from behind the curtain. This arrangement produced a relatively stable political structure in which the outer court of civil officials exercised effective governance while the inner court remained constrained. However, from 1442 onwards, the eunuch Wang Zhen 王振 (?–1449) gradually expanded his authority by controlling imperial rescripts in red ink (pihong 批紅). With the successive deaths of the “Three Yangs” between 1440 and 1446, the civil officials lost their hold on power, and Wang Zhen rapidly assumed full control of the court (Meng 2006a, pp. 139–44).

In 1449, Wang Zhen persuaded Emperor Yingzong to launch a military campaign against the Oirat Mongols, an ill-fated venture that culminated in the Tumu Crisis 土木堡之變, in which the emperor was captured and the Ming court plunged into turmoil. The subsequent Jingtai Emperor saw a partial restoration of civil authority, led by the upright minister Yu Qian 于謙 (1398–1457), although eunuchs continued to wield significant influence. In 1457, the eunuch Cao Jixiang 曹吉祥 (?–1461), with the military noble Shi Heng 石亨 (?–1460), orchestrated the Restoration of Nangong, which brought Emperor Yingzong back to the throne and led to the execution of Yu Qian (Meng 2006a, pp. 144–77).16 By the early Tianshun reign—when Wang Zuo was compiling XZGGYL—the moral and institutional authority of the scholar-officials had been gravely weakened.

The mid-fifteenth century was a period of political instability and ethical decline, to which Wang Zuo responded through his compilation of XZGGYL. As a member of civil bureaucracy, he incorporated 115 essays from earlier masters to create a connoisseurial text aligned with Neo-Confucian values. Among these essays, the most frequently cited figure in XZGGYL is Song Lian 宋濂 (1310–1381), with sixteen essays. He is followed by Zeng Gong 曾鞏 (1019–1083) and Wang Zuo, each with fourteen essays, and by Yu Ji 虞集 (1272–1348), with thirteen. Ouyang Xiu appears nine times, while later Ming figures such as Xie Jin 解縉 (1369–1415) and Yang Shiqi contribute six essays each. Notably, Wang’s selections reflect a strong political–geographical logic embedded within the civil bureaucracy: essays from the very early Ming were predominantly by officials from Zhejiang, whereas those from the early to middle Ming were mostly by scholars from Jiangxi. This shift mirrors broader changes in court politics. After Zhu Di 朱棣 (1360–1424) seized the throne, he targeted the Zhejiang-based faction led by Fang Xiaoru 方孝儒 (1357–1402) (Brook 2010, p. 92), paving the way for the rise of Jiangxi elites, including Xie Jin and Yang Shiqi. From the Yongle 永樂 (1403–1424) to the Jingtai reigns, Jiangxi officials came to dominate the political landscape. Wang Zuo began his career during this period, taking office in the Nanjing Ministry of Justice, and maintained close connections with fellow Jiangxi scholar-officials, as the following section will demonstrate.

Clearly, Wang Zuo’s re-editing and selections in XZGGYL were shaped by his position within a specific bureaucratic cohort. The compilation may thus be understood as an act of cultural power-building mediated through textual production.17 In a time of political volatility, Confucianism was once again mobilized by civil officials as a weapon to defend the orthodoxy and to reconstruct political ethics. His revision of GGYL—reshaping the system of object knowledge through the lens of Confucian discourse—was a call to reaffirm the values of the scholar-official class and to restore a political order in which they held both moral legitimacy and administrative authority. In the process, he recast the connoisseurial manual as a vehicle of ideological transmission and collective identity.

4.2. Networks and Distinctions: Scholar-Official Solidarity in Connoisseurial Practice

If ru (Confucianism) formed the spiritual foundation of Wang Zuo’s identity, then his scholar-official networks provided its tangible coordinates. In other words, the ru that Wang invoked was not an abstract moral category but a bureaucratic cohort shaped by shared institutional conditions. This community was sustained through the common educational background, aligned political experiences, and even similar cultural pursuits. Their bonds were reinforced by the circulation of texts and material objects, as well as by the ongoing social interaction.

In the Ming dynasty, the civil service examination system did more than select officials; it also fostered a transregional network of scholar-officials organized around affiliations such as tongxiang 同鄉 (fellow provincials), tongnian 同年 (jinshi peers of the same cohort), and mensheng 門生 (mentor-protégé relationship). As Timothy Brook has argued:

The examinations had effects other than turning out bureaucrats. They put young scholars into contact with others of the same social background and ambition at ever higher levels all over the country. Sitting for the provincial exam involved more than the isolating exercise of mastering a common body of knowledge, showing up, writing your answers in your sealed cell, and then going home. It was a highly social experience that involved sharing accommodations with other aspirants often for weeks at a time, eating and drinking together, sometimes forging deep bonds. If you passed, those who passed with you became your cohort with whom you could expect to associate, and for whom you could be called upon to do favors, for the rest of your life.

(Brook 2010, p. 150)

Wang Zuo obtained his jinshi degree in 1427, the second year of the Xuande reign (1426–1435). The chief examiner of that year was his fellow Jiangxi native, Zeng Qi 曾棨 (1372–1432). Subsequently, with the support of his Jiangxi networks, Wang Zuo established ties with other scholar-officials, many of which are recorded in XZGGYL. He praised Yang Shiqi for using clarified oil extracted from fried jianpianzi 煎撇子 (a type of pastry) to prepare printing ink (Wang 2019, pp. 281–82); he gifted Zhou Shu 周述 (fl. 15th c.) a Dingwu Version of Orchid Pavilion Prefaced 定武蘭亭序 (Wang 2019, pp. 38–39); and he recounted admiring a rare decoration known as crane’s crest red (he ding hong 鶴頂紅) at the residence of Luo Tong 羅通 (1390–1470) (Wang 2019, pp. 210–11). Elsewhere, Wang Zuo notes that He Shiying 何士英 (fl. 15th c.), the Salt Transport Commissioner for Two Huai Region 两淮鹽運使, presented him several copies of the Orchid Pavilion Preface during an official mission. Later, their colleague Cai Angui 蔡安貴 (fl. 15th c.) acquired another copy and invited Wang to compose a colophon (Wang 2019, pp. 38–39). Another associate, Luan Xuan 欒瑄 (fl. 15th c.), then Prefect of Datong 大同知府, gifted Wang with several knife hilts made of non-charring wood (buhui mu 不灰木) (Wang 2019, pp. 242–43). During the Xuande reign (1426–1435), Wang examined the Seventeen Letters (Shiqi tie 十七帖) with Yang Zhan 仰瞻 (fl. 15th c.), who was the Assistant Censor at the Court of Judicial Review (Dali si cheng 大理寺丞) (Wang 2019, p. 56). Wang also received a desk inlaid with grapevine patterns from He Shixun 何史訓 (fl. 15th c.), an Assistant Director at the Ministry of Revenue 戶部員外 (Wang 2019, p. 56).

These anecdotes are far from trivial. Through the praise, authentication, and annotation of gifted objects, Wang Zuo affirms a shared aesthetic sensibility, cultural literacy, and political alignment among scholar-officials (See Figure 3). The embedding of these instances of gift exchange and material circulation within the text constitutes a form of implicit self-representation and social inscription.

While scholar-officials constructed internal group identity through the exchange of objects, they also projected cultural authority and claimed interpretive power in the broader public sphere. By the middle Ming period, the expansive literati class that would later define late Ming Jiangnan had not yet emerged; nevertheless, most widely circulated connoisseurial texts were still produced by literati unaffiliated with the court. These included Zhao Xihu’s Dongtian qinglu ji from the Song, Tao Zongyi’s (1329–1412) Nancun chuogeng lu 南村輟耕錄 (Records of Leisure from the South Village) from the Yuan, Xia Wenyan’s Tuhui baojian, and Cao Zhao’s GGYL from the early Ming. Their intended audiences were not scholar-officials but rather figures such as the “idle sons of the elites” described in GGYL (Wang 2019, p. 2) or the “a reclusive lover of antiquity, removed from the dust of worldly affairs 清修好古塵外之客” referenced in Dongtian qinglu ji (Zhao and Chen 2016, p. 3). Such orientations were not entirely consonant with the values of scholar-officials engaged in state service.

This misalignment was not merely a matter of taste but one of identity and cultural positioning. On the one hand, scholar-officials shared certain aesthetic tastes with literati; on the other hand, they sought to distinguish themselves from those literati outside the bureaucracy (Chen 2001, pp. 187–218). A notable example is Song Lian, a leading scholar-official of the Ming, who once expressed his indignation when referred to as a member of the literati. Furrowing his brow in displeasure, he retorted:

“A literatus, am I? The principles of Heaven and Earth remain elusive—yet I strive to exhaust them and bring them into form. Do I truly belong among the literati?”

吾文人乎哉？天地之理，欲窮之而未盡，欲凝之而未成也。吾文人乎哉？.

(Du 1977, p. 92)

Similarly, Wang Zuo’s friend and Grand Secretary, Yang Shiqi, drew further distinctions even among ru (Confucians). He observed:

Few Confucians refrain from writing poetry. Yet among them, there are clear gradations: the most esteemed are those devoted to moral cultivation, while those who merely recite literary compositions were referred to by our predecessors as vulgar Confucians

儒者鮮不作詩。然儒之品有高下。高者，道德之儒；若記誦詞章，前輩君子謂之俗儒。.

(Deng 1993, p. 1083)

These statements reflect not a rejection of literary culture per se but a hierarchical distinction grounded in moral cultivation. For scholar-officials like Song Lian and Yang Shiqi, the ideal identity was defined not by literary talent but by ethical seriousness and a commitment to Confucian values.

Nevertheless, much like the reclusive literati of Jiangnan, scholar-officials also desired a connoisseurial manual that accorded with their official identity and affirmed their Confucian convictions—one that could guide the daily practices of collection and discernment while distinguishing them from other social groups. XZGGYL may have emerged in response to this parallel yet distinct set of needs.

XZGGYL functioned as a social platform mediated through the practice of antiquarian discernment. It transformed material objects into instruments of identification among scholar-officials and facilitated a shift from personal collection to collective identity formation. As Clunas has argued, Jiangnan literati asserted cultural authority through the production of books about things. These writings defined the criteria by which artistic and historical objects were assessed, thereby consolidating elite control over cultural capital (Clunas 2004, pp. 166–73). Wang Zuo’s editorial project represents an early iteration of this dynamic—one grounded not in literati self-fashioning but in the moral and institutional framework of the scholar-official. Through his interventions, he articulated a political–cultural alliance—a community of mid-Ming scholar-officials bound by Neo-Confucian ideals. In this sense, XZGGYL became more than a handbook of connoisseurship; it served as a symbolic monument through which scholar-officials could affirm their collective identity.

5. Conclusions

This paper argues that XZGGYL was more than a simple supplement to Cao Zhao’s original connoisseurship manual but a reconfiguration of antiquarian knowledge in terms of Confucian ideology. By content expansion and structural reorganization, Wang Zuo incorporated state rituals, bureaucratic institutions, and moral evaluation into the text. His editorial intervention—particularly the addition of ritual implements, inscriptions by devoted officials, and colophons by Confucian exemplars—realigned antiquarian appreciation with the Neo-Confucian principle of gewu zhizhi, emphasizing moral and historical value above sensory appeal or scarcity of objects.

Moreover, Wang’s compilation must be understood in the context of the ideological and political crisis of the mid-Ming period. After the Tumu Crisis, many literati began to reassess the scope and function of Confucian learning. Some turned their attention to practical forms of knowledge—a shift that may well have included Wang Zuo. By citing Confucian paradigms and selecting loyalist writings, Wang turned XZGGYL into a subtle but meaningful intervention as a response to the disruption of the Confucian order and the anxiety surrounding the loss of cultural authority.

In this context, XZGGYL should be understood as an antiquarian work as much as a textualized Confucian self-definition. Wang incorporated accounts of his interactions with fellow scholar-officials into XZGGYL, such as jointly appraising antiquities or receiving artworks as gifts. He also drew upon a number of essays on particular objects by senior predecessors, which tended to highlight the ethical significance of material objects. These activities helped to build a sense of shared identity among scholar-officials.

In sum, Wang’s intervention demonstrates the adaptability of Confucian discourse—its power to shape both canonical commentaries and ostensibly worldly genres by moralizing objects and cultivating communal values. A promising direction for future study on XZGGYL and other antiquarian writings of the Ming dynasty lies in examining the construction of scholar-official networks. As an official from Jiangxi who benefited from the region’s bureaucratic structure, Wang Zuo’s interactions with fellow Jiangxi elites are clearly reflected in XZGGYL. His regional identity not only shaped his interpersonal relationships but was also embedded in the text itself—through citations, colophons, and evaluative remarks—offering a valuable lens for exploring how Confucian values were disseminated and reconfigured within regionally based bureaucratic communities.