1 For the official cult of the “First Sericulturalist”, see Dieter Kuhn, “Tracing a Chinese Legend: In Search of the Identity of the ‘First Sericulturalist’”, T'oung Pao 70.4/5 (1984), pp. 221–224; Shinjō Rie 新城理恵, “Sensen kaiko girei to chūgoku no kaikoshin shinkō” 先蚕儀礼と中国の蚕神信仰, Hikaku minzoku kenkyū 比較民俗研究 4 (1991), pp. 10–18. Due to language restrictions, only some works in European languages other than English will be cited here.

2 Xia Yan, “Qingju qincan dianli shu” 請舉親蠶典禮疏, in Xiaguizhou xiansheng wenji 夏桂洲先生文集 (1638 ed, rpt. in Sikuquanshu cunmu congshu 四庫全書存目叢書 [hereafter SKCM], Jibu 集部 [Tainan: Zhuangyan wenhua chubanshe, 1997], vol. 74), j. 12 p. 3b.

3 Ming Shizong shilu 明世宗實錄 (Taipei: Zhongyang yanjiuyuan lishi yuyan yanjiusuo, 1965; [hereafter MSZSL]), j. 109, p. 3b, Jiajing 9/1/Bingwu 丙午 (February 12, 1530).

4 MSZSL, 110.6, Jiajing 9/2/Guiyou 癸酉 (March 11, 1530). Kojima Tsuyoshi 小島毅 thinks that Xia Yan's suggestion to place the sericultural ceremony in the northern suburb strengthened the case for splitting the combined sacrifice to Heaven and Earth into two independent ceremonies in the south and north of the palace. See Kojima Tsuyoshi, “Kasei no reiseikaikaku ni tsuite” 嘉靖の礼制改革について, Tōyō bunka kenkyūjo kiyō 東洋文化研究所紀要 117 (1992), pp. 408–411. For studies on suburban sacrifices during the Jiajing reign, see Ho Shu-yi 何淑宜, “Huangquan yu lizhi: Ming Jiajingchao de jiaosili gaige” 皇權與禮制：明嘉靖朝的郊祀禮改革, Joongang Saron 中央史論 (Korea) 22 (2005), pp. 71–98; Rebecca Chang Lien 張璉, “Tiandi fenhe: Mingdai Jiajingchao jiaosili yilun zhi kaocha” 天地分合：明代 嘉靖朝郊祀禮議論之考察, Hanxue yanjiu 漢學研究 23.2 (2005), pp. 161–196; Yu Shu-chun 尤淑君, Mingfenlizhi yu huangquanchongsu: Daliyi yu Jiajing zhengzhi wenhua 名分禮秩與皇權重塑：大禮議與嘉靖政治文化 (Taipei: Department of History, National Chengchi University, 2006), pp. 188–192; Zhao Kesheng 趙克生, Mingchao Jiajing shiqi guojia jili gaizhi 明朝嘉靖時期國家祭禮改制 (Beijing: Shehui kexue wenxian chubanshe, 2006), chap. 2; Hu Jixun 胡吉勛, “Ming Jiajing zhong tiandi fensi, mingtang peixiang zhengyi guanxi zhi kaocha” 明嘉靖中天地分祀, 明堂配享爭議關係之考察, Zhongguo wenhua yanjiusuo xuebao 中國文化研究所學報 44 (2004), p. 129.

5 Joseph Lam offers a detailed description of the process and arguments during the establishment of the sericultural ceremony. See Joseph S. C. Lam, State Sacrifices and Music in Ming China: Orthodoxy, Creativity, and Expressiveness (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1998), pp. 55–74.

6 For example, Kojima Tsuyoshi, “Koushi seido no hensen” 郊祀制度の変遷, Tōyō bunka kenkyūjo kiyō 108 (1989), pp. 150–151; Kojima, “Kasei no reiseikaikaku ni tsuite”, pp. 408–411; Rebecca Chang “Tiandi fenhe”, pp. 173–174; Yu, Mingfenlizhi yu huangquanchongsu, pp. 188–192; Zhao, Mingchao Jiajing shiqi guojia jili gaizhi, pp. 90–95; Huang Chin-shing 黃進興, “Daotong yu zhitong zhijian: Cong Ming Jiajing jiu nian (1530) kongmiao gaizhi tanqi” 道統與治統之間：從明嘉靖九年 (1530) 孔廟改制談起, Zhongyang yanjiuyuan lishi yuyan yanjiusuo jikan 中央研究院歷史語言研究所集刊 64.4 (1990), pp. 917–941. English version as “The Cultural Politics of Autocracy: The Confucian Temple and Ming Despotism, 1368–1530”, in Thomas A. Wilson (ed.), Curtis Dean Smith and Thomas Wilson (tr.), On Sacred Grounds: Culture, Society, Politics, and the Formation of the Cult of Confucius (Cambridge, MA, and London: Harvard University Asia Center, Harvard University Press, 2002), pp. 267–296.

7 Only a few articles have even slightly touched on the gender issue in this case. For example, Joseph S. C. Lam noticed the role of female musicians in the court and their feelings during the reformation; see Joseph S. C. Lam, “Ritual and Musical Politics in the Court of Ming Shizong”, in Bell Yung Evelyn S. Rawski and Rubie S. Watson, (eds.), Harmony and Counterpoint: Ritual Music in Chinese Context (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1996), pp. 48, 52. Some articles mention the power and the status of the empress in the sericultural ritual in the mid-Ming period. See Bao Hua Hsieh [謝葆華], “Empress' Grove: Ritual and Life in the Ming Palace”, Jindai Zhongguo funü shi yanjiu 近代中國婦女史研究 11 (2003), pp. 137–141; Kojima, “Koushi seido no hensen”, pp. 145–152. Also, Lam, “Ritual and Musical Politics in the Court of Ming Shizong”, p. 45.

8 MSZSL, j. 109, p. 4b, Jiajing 9/1/Wushen 戊申 (February 14, 1530).

9 Huo Tao, “Yu Xia Gongjin shu” 與夏公謹書, in Weiyai wenji 渭厓文集 (1576 ed, rpt. in SKCM, Jibu, vol. 68), j. 3, p. 67.

10 MSZSL, j. 112, p. 16a, Jiajing 9/4/Bingxu 丙戌 (May 23, 1530). Wang Shizhen 王世貞 (1526–1590), “Wenbu zhuan: Feng tingwei jingzhao fuzi zhongxiao zhuan” 文部傳．馮廷尉京兆父子忠孝傳, in Yanzhou xugao 弇州續稿 (Jingyin Wenyuange Sikuquanshu 景印文淵閣四庫全書 [hereafter SKQS] [Taipei: Taiwan shangwu yinshuguan, 1983–1986], vol. 1283), j. 76, p. 3b.

11 MSZSL, 109.5a, Jiajing 9/1/Wushen (February 14, 1530).

12 The separation of sexes in Ming China was not flexible as it was in ancient times. Lisa Raphals prefers to speak of “distinctions” between sexes. See Lisa Raphals, Sharing the Light: Representations of Women and Virtue in Early China (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1998), pp. 195–213. Li-Hsiang Lisa Rosenlee also reexamined the congruity between nei-wai and private-public or family-state. Refer to Li-Hsiang Lisa Rosenlee, Confucianism and Women: A Philosophical Interpretation (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2006), chap. 4.

13 MSZSL, j. 110, p. 1b, Jiajing 9/2/Gengwu 庚午 (March 8, 1530).

14 However, in the year 280, when empress Yang performed the sericultural ceremony, male officials and the empress' father attended it. See Du You 杜佑 (735–812), Tong Dian 通典 (801; Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1988), j. 67, p. 1861 (Li ershiyi 禮二十一). Also, many male officials joined this ceremony during the Tang dynasty. See Shinjō Rie, “Sakikaiko girei to tōdai no kōgō”, Shiron 史論 46 (1993), pp. 42–47. Furthermore, in the mid-eleventh century, officials in charge of this ceremony included men. See Tuotuo 脫脫 (1314–1356) et al., Song shi 宋史 (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1977), j. 102, p. 2494.

15 MSZSL, j. 109, p. 5b, Jiajing 9/1/Wushen (February 14, 1530); j. 110, p. 2b, Jiajing 9/2/Gengwu (March 8, 1530); j. 111, p. 15a, Jiajing 9/3/Dingsi 丁巳 (April 24, 1530).

16 Source: Zhang Jue 張爵 (1485–1556), Jingshi wucheng fangxiang hutong ji 京師五城坊巷衚衕集 (1560; 1922 edition by Liu Chenggan 劉承幹 (comp.), Qiushuzhai congshu 求恕齋叢書, huibian lei 彙編類, vol. 15, rpt., Yan Yi-ping 嚴一萍 [comp.], Yuanke jingyin congshu jinghua 原刻景印叢書菁華 [Taipei: Yiwen yinshuguan, 1970]).

17 Bao Hua Hsieh, “Empress' Grove”, p. 141.

18 MSZSL, j. 112, p. 15a, Jiajing 9/4/Jiashen 甲申 (May 21, 1530). Kojima claims this was the last time in the history of China. See his “Kasei no reiseikaikaku ni tsuite”, pp. 411–414.

19 Fan Shouji 范守己 (jinshi 進士 1574), Huangming suhuang waishi 皇明肅皇外史 (SKCM, Shibu 史部, vol. 52), j. 6, p. 12b.

20 Huo Tao, Huo WeiYa jiaxun 霍渭厓家訓 (Jingyin Hanfenlou miji 景印涵芬樓秘笈 [Taipei: Taiwan shangwu yinshuguan, 1967], vol. 1), “Hecuan nannü yilu tushuo” 合爨男女異路圖說, p. 1a; huixun di shisan 彙訓第十三, j. 1, p. 30a This family instruction was written in 1507, when he was 21 years old.

21 MSZSL, j. 83, pp. 8b–9a, Jiajing 6/12/Renzi 壬子 (December 31, 1527). Thomas Shiyu Li and Susan Naquin, “The Baoming Temple: Religion and the Throne in Ming and Qing China”, Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 48.1 (1988), pp. 131–188.

22 Yi Jo-lan 衣若蘭, Sangu liupo – Mingdai funü yu shehui de tansuo 三姑六婆—明代婦女與社會的探索, 2nd ed. (Taipei: Daoxiang chubanshe, 2006 [2002]), pp. 105–143.

23 Dorothy Ko, Teachers of the Inner Chambers: Women and Culture in Seventeenth-Century China (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1994), pp. 13–14, 144–145.

24 On this topic, studies of the boundaries between nei/wai in Song China, such as expressed in the statement “women have no outer affairs”, offer us some idea of gender distinction concepts. See Liu Ching-cheng 劉靜貞, “Nü wu waishi? – Muzhi beiming zhong suojian zhi bei Song shidafu shehui zhixu linian” 女無外事?—墓誌碑銘中所見之北宋士大夫社會秩序理念, Funü yu liangxing xuekan 婦女與兩性 學刊 4 (1993), pp. 21–46; Patricia Buckley Ebrey, The Inner Quarters: Marriage and the Lives of Chinese Women in the Sung Period (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993), pp. 23–27. Deng Xiaonan 鄧小南 claims that the boundaries between nei/wai were not static and inner/outer were connected defined, and transformed by each other. See her “‘Neiwai’ zhiji yu ‘zhixu’ geju: Jiantan Songdai shidafu duiyu Zhouyi ‘Jiaren’ de chanfa” “內外”之際與“秩序”格局：兼談宋代士大夫對於《周易．家人》的闡發, in Deng Xiaonan (ed), Tang Song nüxing yu shehui 唐宋女性與社會 (Shanghai: Shanghai cishu chubanshe, 2003), p. 100.

25 Zheng Xuan 鄭玄 (127–200), Zhouli zhushu 周禮注疏 (Shisanjing zhushu 十三經注疏 ed. [Taipei: Yiwen yinshuguan, 1967]), j. 7, p. 17a (“Tianguan: Neizai” 天官．內宰). The Zhouli was compiled between the eighth and the fifth century B.C.

26 Zheng Xuan, Zhouli zhushu, j. 1, p. 26 (“Tianguan: Zhongzai” 天官．冢宰).

27 Source: Wang Zhen 王禎 (1271–1368), Nongshu 農書 [Book of Agriculture] (1530 ed. [From the archives of the Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica, Republic of China 中央研究院歷史語言研究所藏品]), Nongqi tupu ji 農器圖譜集, j. 16, p. 33.

28 Throughout history, the First Sericulturalist has included Leizü 嫘祖 (Xilingshi), Dagu 大姑, Ergu 二姑, Yushi gongzhu 寓氏公主, Matouniang 馬頭娘, Canmu 蠶母, and Tiancixing 天賜星 “the team of four horses”. See Fig. 2. Dieter Kuhn has reviewed ideas on the identity of the First Sericulturalist. See Kuhn, “Tracing a Chinese Legend”, pp. 230–233.

29 Ming Shizong Zhu Houcong 朱厚熜 and Zhang Fujing 張孚敬 (1475–1539), Yuduilu 諭對錄 (1609 ed, rpt. in SKCM, Shibu, vol. 57), j. 14, pp. 5b–6b, Jiajing 9/1/23–24 (February 20–21, 1530); j. 14, p. 9a, Jiajing 9/1/28 (February 25, 1530).

30 Interestingly, according to research, popular woodcut prints from the late sixteenth-century to the late seventeenth-century reveal that the progenitor of sericulture was shown either as a tablet or a male portrait. Cf. Kuhn, “Tracing a Chinese Legend”, p. 238.

31 Angela Zito, “Ritualizing Li: Implications for Studying Power and Gender”, Positions: East Asia Cultures Critique 1.2 (1993), pp. 335–336.

32 Deng Zhifeng 鄧志峰, Wangxue yu wan Ming de shidao fuxing yundong 王學與晚明的師道復興運動 (Beijing: Shehui kexue wenxian chubanshe, 2004), pp. 89–93.

33 Ming Shizong Zhu Houcong and Zhang Fujing Yuduilu, j. 14, p. 9a, Jiajing 9/1/28 (February 25, 1530).

34 MSZSL, j. 110, p. 12b, Jiajing 9/2/Xinsi 辛巳 (March 19, 1530).

35 For serving-women in the Ming dynasty, see Bao Hua Hsieh, “From Charwoman to Empress Dowager: Serving-women in the Ming Palace”, Ming Studies 42 (1999), pp. 26–80.

36 MSZSL, j. 110, p. 2, Jiajing 9/2/Guiyou (March 11, 1530).

37 Source: Wang Zhen, Nongshu, Nongqi tupu ji, j. 16, p. 33 (“Xiancan tan” 先蠶壇). This book was printed in 1530, the year the sericulture ceremony was reinstituted. Cf. note 27.

38 Unlike in the Tang dynasty, bamboo hooks were used instead of golden ones for the empress' performance of the silk-processing exercise. This emphasized the universal meaning of the ritual exercises and underscored the difficulties of female tasks. Cf. Lam, “Ritual and Musical Politics in the Court of Ming Shizong”, p. 37.

39 For the whole process of the sericulture ceremony, refer to MSZSL, j. 110, pp. 1b–5a, Jiajing 9/2/Guiyou (March 11, 1530); Guo Zhengyu 郭正域 (1554–1612), Huang Ming dianli zhi 皇明典禮志 (1613 ed.; rpt., Xuxiu Sikuquanshu 續修四庫全書, Shibu 史部 [Shanghai: Shanghai guji chubanshe, 1997], vol. 824), j. 12, pp. 3a–5a (“Qincan” 親蠶). Zhang Tingyu 張廷玉 (1672–1755) et al., Ming shi 明史 (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1974), j. 49, pp. 1273–1276.

40 Source: Wang Zhen, Nongshu, Nongqi tupu ji, j. 16, p. 31 (“Jianguan” 繭館). Cf note 27.

41 Susan Mann, “Work and Households in Chinese Culture: Historical Perspectives”, in Barbara Entwisle and Gail E. Henderson (eds.), Re-drawing Boundaries: Work, Households, and Gender in China (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000), p. 26.

42 Francesca Bray, Technology and Gender: Fabrics of Power in Late Imperial China (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997), p. 250. This kind of state ritual action in the political tradition reflected the idea of “rule by virtue”.

43 See Bray, Technology and Gender, pp. 173–272; Susan Mann, Precious Records: Women in China's Long Eighteenth Century (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1997), pp. 143–177.

44 Li Bozhong 李伯重 thinks that this gender labor division did not become a dominant pattern in the Lower Yangtze River Delta until the mid-Qing See his “Cong ‘fufu bingzuo’ dao ‘nangeng nüzhi’ – Ming Qing Jiangnan nongjia funü laodong wenti tantao zhi yi” 從「夫婦并作」到「男耕女織」— 明清江南農家婦女勞動問題探討之一, Zhongguo jingji shi yanjiu 中國經濟史研究 (1996/3), pp. 99–107; “‘Nangeng nüzhi’ yu ‘funü banbiantian’ jiaose de xingcheng: Ming Qing Jiangnan nongjia funü laodong wenti tantao zhi er” 「男耕女織」與「婦女半邊天」角色的形成 – 明清江南農家婦女勞動問題探討之二, Zhongguo jingji shi yanjiu (1997/3), pp. 10–22.

45 Francesca Bray claims that prior to the tax reform in the late sixteenth century all households were taxed in textiles and grains. Men's and women's roles as producers in the household economy were thus reinforced by the court. Cf Francesca Bray, “Textile Production and Gender Roles in China, 1000–1700”, Chinese Science 12 (1995), p. 132.

46 European Enlightenment monarchs (ex. Louis XV [1710–1774, r. 1715–1774]) imitated the Chinese ritual of having the emperor plow the year's first furrow but did not have the empress collect mulberry leaves publicly and patronize the First Sericulturalist. Kenneth Pomeranz thinks this is probably no accident as the idea of celebrating female production for both market and home use and considering these tasks an aid to a woman's task of raising virtuous children would have seemed quite foreign to Europeans. See Kenneth Pomeranz, The Great Divergence: China, Europe, and the Making of the Modern World Economy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000), p. 99. The moralization of textile work was truly distinctive of Chinese culture. See Bert Hinsch, “Textiles and Female Virtue in Early Imperial Chinese Historical Writing”, Nan Nü: Men, Women and Gender in Early and Imperial China 5.2 (2003), p. 174.

47 See Shinjō, “Sakikaiko girei to tōdai no kōgō”; Chen Jo-shui 陳弱水, “Empress Wu and Proto-feminist Sentiments in T'ang China”, in Frederick P. Brandauer and Chun-chieh Huang 黃俊傑 (eds.), Imperial Rulership and Cultural Change in Traditional China (Seattle and London: University of Washington Press, 1994), pp. 77–116. Later revised as “Chu Tang zhengzhi zhong de nüxing yishi” 初唐政治中的女性意識, in his Tangdai de funü wenhua yu jiating shenghuo 唐代的婦女文化與家庭生活 (Taipei: Yunchen wenhua, 2007), pp. 203–205.

48 Other than in the year 1530 and 1531, it was also performed in 1532. See MSZSL, j. 136, p. 4b, Jiajing 11/3/Jisi 己巳 (April 25, 1532). However, there is no record in the Shilu for 1533. In the account, it is only said “Reeling silk from cocoons was finished in the First Sericultruralist altar of the inner palace”. But the empress does not appear in the text. See MSZSL, j. 163, p. 1b, Jiajing 13/5/Wuyin 戊寅 (June 23, 1534). This was not normal as Lady Fang was enthroned as the empress in this year. See MSZSL, j. 158, pp. 1b–4b, Jiajing 13/1/ Yichou 乙丑 (January 21, 1534). The ceremony might not have been performed by the empress in 1534. In addition, according to the record of Huang Ming dianli zhi, the sericulture ceremony was practiced in 1535 in the inner palace as usual (j. 12, p. 5a, “Qincan“). The Ming shilu 明實錄 reports: “Reeling silk from cocoons was finished in the First Sericulturalist altar of the inner palace”. See MSZSL, j. 175, p. 8b, Jiajing 14/5/Bingxu (June 26, 1535). I doubt the record of Huang Ming dianli zhi, for this was an important ritual in the court and it should have been recorded in the Ming shilu.

49 Shizong was born as a prince but was not the heir of the royal line. He was enthroned after his cousin Wuzong 武宗 (1491–1521, r. 1505–1521) had in 1521, without an heir. Once he accepted the throne, he faced the problem of the genealogical relationship with Xiaozong 孝宗 (1470–1505, r. 1487–1505, Wuzong's father) and with his biological father. See Carney T. Fisher, The Chosen One: Succession and Adoption in the Court of Ming Shizong (Sydney: Allen and Unwin, 1990). This caused grave conflicts during the early part of Shizong's reign and was called “The Great Rite Controversy” (dali yi 大禮議). Splitting the combined sacrifice to Heaven and Earth into two independent ceremonies in the south and north of the palace made Shizong's biological father Heaven's companion in the state sacrifice to Heaven and the imperial father. See Lam, State Sacrifices and Music in Ming China, pp. 56–57; Yu, Mingfenlizhi yu huangquanchongsu. Hu Jixun claimed this ritual was for glorifying his biological father. See Hu, “Ming Jiajing zhong tiandi fensi, mingtang peixiang zhengyi guanxi zhi kaocha”, p. 128.

50 Joseph S. C. Lam also assumed Shizong's opponents may have seen the ceremony as an excuse to glorify his biological mother, but he did not elaborate on this point. See his “Ritual and Musical Politics in the Court of Ming Shizong”, p. 45.

51 Yu Ruji 俞汝楫 (fl. 1573–1620) et al. (eds.), Libu zhigao 禮部志稿 (1620; SKQS, vols. 597–598), j. 6, pp. 26b–27a. Ming Shizong Zhu Houcong and Zhang Fujing Yuduilu, j. 14, pp. 1a–b, Jiajing 9/1/14 (February 11, 1530).

52 MSZSL, j. 118, p. 1b, Jiajing 9/10/Jiwei 己未 (October 23, 1530). Lady Jiang compiled this book before she became an empress dowager. She was the only princess-consort associated with a women's moral introductory book in Ming China, which shows her ability and ambition.

53 Shizong's behavior was a kind of Momism according to Chu Hung 朱鴻. Refer to his “‘Dali’ yi yu Ming jiajing chuqi de zhengzhi” “大禮”議與明嘉靖初期的政治 (Master's thesis, Department of History, National Taiwan Normal University, 1978), pp. 78–94. Lin Yenqing 林延清 thinks that for Shizong what was more urgent and more important than giving a posthumous title to his biological father, was how to entitle his biological mother. See Lin Yanqing “Jiang taihou yu dali yi” 蔣太后與大禮議, Shixue jikan 史學集刊 (2008/5), pp. 28–33.

54 MSZSL, j. 6, p. 4a, Zhengde 16/9/Xinyou 辛酉 (Octomber 12, 1521). Huang Guangsheng 黃光昇 (1506–1586), Zhaodai dianze 昭代典則 (SKCM, Shibu, vols. 12–13), j. 25, p. 55a.

55 MSZSL, j. 7, p. 1b, Zhengde 16/10/Gengchen 庚辰 (Octomber 31, 1521).

56 Huo Tao, (ed.), Huo Yusia 霍與瑕 (jinshi 1559) (sup.), Shen Yingqian 沈應乾 (jinshi 1550) and Huo Shangshou 霍尚守 (fl. the late sixteenth century) (comp.), Shitou lu 石頭錄 (Yu Hao 于浩 [comp.], Mingdai mingren nianpu 明代名人年譜 [Beijing: Beijing tushuguan chubanshe, 2006], vol. 4), j. 5, p. 3b.

57 Shen Defu 沈德符 (1578–1642), Wanli yehuo bian 萬曆野獲編 (1606; Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1997 [1959]), j. 2, p. 40 (“Jiajing chuyi dali” 嘉靖初議大禮).

58 See MSZSL, j. 184, p. 4b, Jiajing 15/2/Jihai 己亥 (March 5, 1536). Lam claimed that it was suspended in 1537, according to Qin Huitian's 秦蕙田 (1702–1764) Wuli tongkao 五禮通考 in the Qing dynasty. See his “Ritual and Musical Politics in the Court of Ming Shizong”, p. 42. However, I found that there is no record about the empress performing sericultural ceremony in Ming shilu in the years 1534 to 1535; it is only said, “Reeling silk from cocoon is finished in the First Sericultruralist altar of the inner palace”. This means there was no First Sericulturalist worship practiced by the empress but only the rite of reeling silk from cocoons, which normally follows the First Sericultruralist worship. During the periods 1536 to 1543, 1545 to 1547, and the years 1557 and 1559, the court sent court ladies to practice this ritual rather than having it performed by the empress. See MSZSL, j. 235, p. 3b, Jiajing 19/3/Yisi 乙巳 (April 19, 1540); j. 247, pp. 1a–b, Jiajing 20/3/Guisi 癸巳 (April 2, 1541); j. 259, p. 2b, Jiajing 21/3/Guisi (March 28, 1542); j. 272, p. 2a, Jiajing 22/3/Dingsi (April 16, 1543); j. 295, p. 4b, Jiajing 24/Run 閏 1/Dinghai 丁亥 (March 6, 1545); j. 308, p. 5b, Jiajing 25/2/Dingsi (March 31, 1546); j. 321, p. 4b, Jiajing 26/3/Jisi (April 7, 1546); j. 334, p. 6a, Jiajing 27/3/Wuxu 戊戌 (April 30, 1548); j. 346, p. 5a, Jiajing 28/3/Xinsi (April 8, 1549); j. 445, p. 1a, Jiajing 36/3/Dingsi (April 2, 1557); j. 470, p. 2a, Jiajing 38/3/Xinsi (April 16, 1559). According to Xu Xuemo 徐學謨 (1521–1593), it was suspended in 1558 as well. Xu Xuemo, “Ti qincan ji xianshicanzhi shu” 題親蠶祭先氏蠶祗疏, in Xushi haiyu ji 徐氏海隅集 (SKCM, Jibu, vol. 125, reprint 1577 edition and revised by Xu Yuangu 徐元嘏 [fl. 1628–1644] in 1612), j. 3, pp. 16b–18b.

59 MSZSL, j. 506, p. 1a, Jiajing 41/2/Xinyou (March 11, 1562). Scholars have different opinions on when the sericulture ceremony fell into disuse in Ming China. Wei Dong 畏冬 claimed that, according to the Ming tongdian 明通典, it was abandoned in 1552. See Wei Dong “Nangeng nüzhi de gudai Zhongguo zhi qi – Ming muke banhua Huanghou qincan tu” 男耕女織的古代中國之七—明木刻版畫 “皇后親蠶圖”, Lishi yuekan 歷史月刊 51 (1992), p. 84; Lam claimed that it was abolished in 1559. See his State Sacrifices and Music in Ming China, p. 72. But according to the record of Shilu, officials were no longer allowed to appeal for the practice of the sericulture ceremony in 1562. This should be the final decision of Shizong on the issue.

60 See Bao Hua Hsieh, “Empress' Grove”, p. 141.

61 Zhu Ziyan 朱子彥, Diguo jiuchongtian – Zhongguo hougong zhidu bianqian 帝國九重天—中國後宮制度變遷 (Beijing: Zhongguo renmin daxue chubanshe, 2006), p. 169.

62 MSZSL, j. 158, pp. 1b–4b, Jiajing 13/1/Yimao 乙卯 (January 21, 1534); j. 330, p. 2a, Jiajing 26/11/Jiwei (January 21, 1547).

63 In the Tang dynasty, normally the emperor and empress did not practice these ceremonies in person. See Chen Jo-shui, “Chu Tang zhengzhi zhong de nüxing yishi”, p. 203.

64 MSZSL, j. 147, p. 1b, Jiajing 12/2/Gengchen (March 2, 1533). Shizong claimed that he did not feel well, so he accepted Xia Yan's advice to stop performing it temporarily.

65 Huang Jingfang 黃景昉 (1596–1662), Guoshi weiyi 國史唯疑 (ca. 1644; Shanghai: Shanghai guji chubanshe, 2002), j. 6, p. 157. In 1532, one year after the altars for worshipping Heaven and Earth were built, Shizong became reluctant to attend the suburban sacrifice ritual as well. See Hu Jixun, “Ming Jiajing zhong tiandi fensi, mingtang peixiang zhengyi guanxi zhi kaocha”, p. 128.

66 Empress Dowager Jiang died in late 1538; therefore, there was no need to glorify his biological mother by practicing the sericulture ceremony after 1538. See MSZSL, j. 290, p. 1a, Jiajing 17/12/Renyin 壬寅 December 23, 1538).

67 For example, in the Han dynasty, Chengdi 成帝 (51–7 B.C., r. 33–7 B.C.) performed the sacrifice to Heaven in the southern suburb. After his death the empress dowager Wang decided to revive the practice of performing the sacrifice in the south and north of the capital. Zheng Qiao 鄭樵 (1104–1162), Tongzhi ershi lue 通志二十略 (1161; Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1995), Lilue diyi: Jili shang 禮略第一．吉禮上, “Jiaotian” 郊天, p. 598.

68 Refer to Kojima, “Kasei no reiseikaikaku ni tsuite”, pp. 145–152. Ann Walter also thinks ritual practice demonstrates that palace women in the Ming were more restrained than those in the Song court. See Ann Walter, “A Princess Comes of Age: Gender, Life-Cycle and Ritual in Song Dynasty China”, in Joëlle Rollo-Koster (ed.), Medieval and Early Modern Ritual: Formalized Behavior in Europe, China, and Japan (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2002), p. 52.

69 Bao Hua Hsieh, “Empress' Grove”, p. 140.

70 For example, Emily M. Ahern, “The Power and Pollution of Chinese Women”, in Margery Wolf and Roxanne Wike (eds.), Women in Chinese Society (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1975), pp. 169–190.

71 Qiu Jun, Daxue yanyi bu 大學衍義補 (1487; SKQS, vols. 712–713), j. 64, pp. 4a–b (“Zhiguo pingtianxia zhi yao: Zhi jisi” 治國平天下之要．秩祭祀).

72 See his “Female Gender in Chinese Religious Symbols: Kuan Yin, Ma Tsu, and ‘The Eternal Mother’”, Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 9 (1983), pp. 4–25.

73 On the recruitment of women for service in the palace, see Bao Hua Hsieh, “From Charwoman to Empress Dowager”, pp. 33–35.

74 They were from Wanping 宛平 and Daxing 大興 counties of the Capital. See Shen Bang 沈榜 (1540–1597), Wanshu zaji 宛署雜記 (1593; Beijing: Beijing chubanshe, 1961), j. 20, p. 250 (Zhiyi wu 志遺五, “Nü jiaofu” 女轎夫). Common women serving as healers, wet-nurses and midwives in the Ming palace also hailed from this area; see Victoria Cass, “Female Healers in the Ming and the Lodge of Ritual and Ceremony”, Journal of the American Oriental Society 106.1 (1986), pp. 233–245.

75 Serving-women in Song China still maintained close relationship with their families. See Priscilla Ching Chung, Palace Women in the Northern Sung, 960–1126 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1981). Palace women of lesser rank were considered to have freedom of movement until the late Ming. Refer to Ellen Soulliere, “Structural Features of the Organization of Imperial Women in China's Ming Dynasty (1368–1644)”, in Edwina Palmer (ed), Asian Futures, Aian Traditions (Folkstone, UK: Global Oriental, 2005), pp. 47–49. Bao Hua Hsieh indicated that the conditions for serving-women changed in the Ming dynasty and remained that way during the Qing. See her “From Charwoman to Empress Dowager”, pp. 28–29.

76 MSZSL, j. 194, p. 14b, Jiajing 15/12/Jiyou 己酉 (January 9, 1534).

77 Regarding the sericultural ceremony practice in Qing China, refer to Susan Mann, “Household Handicrafts and State Policy in Qing Times”, in Jane Kate Leonard and John R. Watt (eds.), To Achieve Security and Wealth: The Qing Imperial State and the Economy, 1644–1911 (Ithaca, NY: East Asia Program, Cornell University, 1992), pp. 81–82; Precious Records: Women in China's Long Eighteenth Century, pp. 151–153; Liu Lu 劉潞, “Lun Qingdai xiancan li” 論清代先蠶禮, Gugong bowuyuan yuankan 故宮博物院院刋 67 (1995), pp. 28–34. Susan Naquin mentioned that Empress Dowager Cixi 慈禧 (1835–1908) revived the use of the Altar to Sericulture in the imperial city and performed the rituals herself. See Susan Naquin, Peking: Temples and City Life, 1400–1900 (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. 2000), p. 348. However, neither official nor private records from the Qing dynasty show that Empress Dowager Cixi had ever practiced the sericulture ceremony. Naquin cites Sarah Pike Conger (1843–1932) and Georges Bouillard (1862–1930); both authors indicate that the empress herself, not Empress Dowager Cixi, performed the ritual. See Sarah Pike Conger, Old China and New America (Chicago: F. G. Browne, 1913), pp. 27–29; Georges Bouillard, “Usages et coutumes à Pékin durant la 2e lune”, La Chine 35 (1923), pp. 131–132.

78 Under the Choson 朝鮮王朝, Koreans started to worship Xilingshi in 1400. The Ch'injam ŭigwe 親蠶儀軌, an important source on sericultural ceremony, was compiled in 1767. See Kyujanggak 奎章閣 (ed.), Ch'injam ŭigwe (Seoul: Sŏul Taehakkyo Kyujanggak 2004). The cereomony was still in practice during Japanese colonial times and once revived in 1993. See “Hanguo huifu ‘xiancan jie”’ 韓國恢復先蠶節, Nongye kaogu 農業考古 (1995/3), p. 214. The emperor and empress of Japan still performed working in the rice field and feeding silkworms. See “‘Nangeng nüzhi’ – Ri huangzu zhongxian chuantong shenghuo” “男耕女織”—日皇族重現傳統生活, Xinjiyuan zhoukan 新紀元周刊 125 (2009), http://epochweekly.com/b5/127/6483.htm (accessed February 12, 2012).

79 See Kuhn, “Tracing a Chinese Legend”, p. 224. However, according to Wenxian tongkao 文獻通考, in 1137, under the Southern Song, the empress did worship the First Sericulturalist in the palace. See Ma Duanlin 馬端臨 (1254–1333/34), Wenxian tongkao (1322; Taipei: Taiwan shangwu yinshuguan, 1987, reprint 1936 Shitong 十通 ed.), j. 87, p. 797b–c (“Jiaoshe kao ershi” 郊社考二十). Unfortunately, in his article, Kuhn does not explain why the sericulture ceremony was abandoned in the sixteenth century.

80 Pierre-Étienne Will, “Développement quantitatif et développement qualitatif en Chine à la fin de l'époque impériale”, Annales: Histoire, Sciences Sociales (1994/4), pp. 863–902.

81 In 1530, Shizhong hurried to perform the sericulture ceremony. The Ministry of Rites was afraid that court ladies would only have a rudimentary knowledge of the necessary ceremonial conventions, so they gave them an illustration for instruction. See MSZSL, j. 111, p. 5a, Jiajing 9/3/Bingshen 丙申 (April 3, 1530). In this context Joseph S. C. Lam refers to the fact that female musicians regularly provided musical entertainment in the Ming court. But they did not provide music for the state sacrifices until 1530. Evidently, they had to master this requirement within a very short time and risked being criticized on purely political grounds. See Lam, “Ritual and Musical Politics in the Court of Ming Shizong”, pp. 48, 52.