In this article I explore the issue of ritual authority in the Ming and Chosŏn through a comparison of the Great Rites Controversy and the Injo Rites Dispute which occurred a century later. I argue that Ming Taizu created an alternative source of ritual authority predicated on natural emotions through his changing of the national mourning code. By utilizing this source of ritual authority, Shizong and his allies undermined the ritual authority of the classical texts and Neo-Confucian commentaries cited by their opponents and in doing so not only won the conflict but also increased the ritual authority of the emperor vis-à-vis the bureaucracy. In Chosŏn, on the other hand, both sides argued along Song Neo-Confucian lines and rejected Ming ritual authority. Nonetheless, the lack of an alternate source of ritual authority that King Injo could rely upon led him to turn to the Ming for support in a calculated political move to end the dispute in his favor.

在这篇文章中，我通过比较一个世纪后发生的“大礼之争”和“印祖礼之争”来探讨明朝和朝鲜的礼制权威问题。我认为，明太祖通过改变国家的丧典，创造了一种基于自然情感的仪式权威的替代来源。世宗及其同盟者利用这一礼权源，破坏了对手所引用的经书和理学注释的礼制，不仅赢得了冲突，而且增加了皇帝对面的礼制。 - 面对官僚机构。另一方面，在朝鲜，双方沿着宋理学的路线争论不休，拒绝明朝的礼制权威。尽管如此，