Page 205 - Ming_China_Courts_and_Contacts_1400_1450 Craig lunas

Table 4 Width of bay (in metres) , number of intercolumnar bracket-set clusters and distance between the bracket-set clusters (in doukou) 55
54
Ling’endian Zixiaodian Longguodian
Façade:
Central bay (mingjian 明間) 10.30m, 8 sets, 11.5 doukou 8.37m, 6 sets, 11.4 doukou 6.60m, 4 sets, 12 doukou
56
First flanking bays (cijian 次間 1) 7.20m, 6 sets, 10.4 doukou 6.39m, 4 sets, 12.1 doukou 5.70m, 4 sets, 10.4 doukou
Second flanking bays (cijian 2) 7.20m, 6, sets, 10.4 doukou N/A 5.70m, 4 sets, 10.4 doukou
Third flanking bays (cijian 3) 7.20m, 6 sets, 10.4 doukou N/A N/A
Side bays (shaojian 梢間) 6.70m, 6 sets, 10.4 doukou 2.56m, 1 set, 12.1 doukou 2.12m, none, 19.3 doukou (?)
Side:
Central bay 10.30m, 9 sets, 9.6 doukou 5.94m, 4 sets, 10.8 doukou 7.74m, 4 sets, 14.1 doukou
First flanking bays 6.70m, 6 sets, x 57 3.66m, 2 sets, 11.1 doukou 3.82m, 2 sets, 11.6
doukou
Side bays 2.80m, 2 sets, x 58 2.56m, 1 set, 10.1 doukou 1.92m, none, 17.4 doukou (?)

used to calculate the cross-sections of the other structural the structures were built, it was likely up to the local
members, it was not yet used to determine the widths of the craftsmen to apply superficial decoration according to
bays. Similarly, in the three Ming halls examined here, the regional customs, based on the functional demands of the
59
spacing between the bracket-sets in the central bay is not set halls or in response to site-specific geographic constraints. It
at eleven, but fluctuates between 10.3 to 12.1 doukou modules. is no doubt these superficial decorations that account for the
The width of the central bay at Longguodian, for instance, is halls’ immediately recognisable differences and obscure
60 doukou and there are four bracket-set clusters, meaning their many underlying consistencies.
that they are spaced at 12 doukou intervals. The spacing of the
bracket-sets also differs depending on whether they are Notes
located in the central bay (mingjian 明間), the flanking bays I would like to thank Rui Zhu and Alexandra Harrer for
(cijian 次間) or the corner bays (shaojian 梢間). For instance, their helpful comments on a draft of this chapter.
whereas the bracket-sets in the central bay at Ling’endian
are spaced at 11.5 doukou, those in the flanking and corner 1 Liang and Fairbank 2005, 103.
bays are spaced at 10.4 doukou (Table 4). 2 The palaces in Nanjing were constructed in three phases: between
These buildings reveal that in the early Ming the 1366 and 1367 the basic scale and layout of the buildings was
arranged; from 1375 to 1377 most of the palace buildings were
number of inter-columnar bracket sets became a primary constructed; and in 1392 they were expanded. The palaces in
expression of a building’s rank. Moreover, although we do Beijing were constructed between 1416 and 1420, but were rebuilt
see some evidence of a close relationship between the and expanded several times throughout the Ming and Qing
number of bracket sets and the width of the bays, it is also dynasties. See Pan 2009, 112–18 for an introduction to the palace
architecture in Nanjing under Hongwu and in Beijing under
clear that these early Ming buildings did not yet determine Yongle. For a study on the construction dates of Yongle’s capital at
the width of the bays based on the 11-doukou rule later Beijing see Li Xieping 1995, 34–64.
outlined in the Gongcheng zuofa. Even though the system of 3 Guo 2005, 1–2. It is important to mention that each new dynasty
60
bracket-set spacing was not set precisely at 11 doukou in the developed its own official architectural style. According to Fu
early Ming period, the more or less stable 10 to 12 doukou Xinian, official architecture can be understood in contrast to
vernacular architecture. Fu argues that whereas vernacular
distances in the three Yongle halls examined here architecture evolves organically at a consistent rate, depending on
undoubtedly set the stage for the standardisation that was such factors as geography, climate and culture, because it is
finally achieved in the Qing. controlled and standardised by the government, official
architecture instead develops in stages, with significant changes
being made under each new dynasty. Fu 1999, 91.
Conclusions 4 Little has been published on the architecture of Ling’endian. See
Upon first glance Ling’endian, Zixiaodian and Liu Dunzhen 1933 and Li Qianlang 2009 for an introduction.
Longguodian look quite different from each other. However, 5 Between 1413 and 1424 Emperor Yongle constructed dozens of
a closer investigation of their structures reveals that they Daoist temples over a 60km-wide area of Mount Wudang. On this
architectural complex, see Wudangshan zhi bianzuan weiyuanhui
were built according to the same basic architectural 1994, 123–69; Hubei sheng jianshe ting 2005; and de Bruyn 2010,
principles as each other. The style they embody, now known especially ch. 12.
as the official Ming architectural style, was novel at the time, 6 Qutansi was consecutively supported by the Hongwu, Yongle,
having been worked out in the first 60 or so years of the Hongxi and Xuande emperors. Although the construction of
Ming dynasty. In comparison with pre-Ming buildings, Longguodian was finished in the second year of the Xuande (1427)
reign, the project was initiated during the reign of Yongle. On the
those built in the early 15th century are highly simplified and architecture of Qutansi see Wu Cong 1994; Debreczeny 2007,
standardised. The new Ming architectural style can be 158–90; and Campbell 2011, 127–45.
understood as the product of efforts to facilitate carpenters’ 7 For an overview and history of the Yingzao fashi see Glahn 1981,
workloads and also to save wood during the intense period of Glahn 1975 and Glahn 1984; and Guo Qinghua 1988. For
annotated and punctuated versions of the Yingzao fashi see Liang
construction of the two Ming capitals. Indeed, as we can tell Sicheng 1983 and (Song) Li Jie 2006.
from the halls examined here, the official Ming 8 On the Gongcheng zuofa see Liang Sicheng 2006 and Wang Puzi
architectural style was a one-size-fits-all model that was 1995.
designed to move across wide geographical territories. Once 9 Harrer 2010, 44.

Architecture of the Early Ming Court: A Preliminary Look | 195