| | 改葬服議: |
|
| |
|
| | 改葬服議: |
周制，喪服曰：「改葬緦。」春秋穀梁傳：魯莊公三年，葬桓王。傳曰：「改葬也。改葬之禮，緦，舉下緬也。」 |
| | The Zhou system, mourning attire regulations state: "For a reburial, wear the sī mourning robe." Spring and Autumn Guliang Commentary: In the third year of Duke Zhuang of Lu, King Huan was buried. The commentary says: "This refers to a reburial. "The rites for a reburial involve wearing sī, which elevates those of lower status to mourn. "
|
| | 改葬服議: |
漢戴德云：「制緦麻具而葬，葬而除，謂子為父、妻妾為夫、臣為君、孫為祖後也。無遣奠之禮。其餘親皆弔服。」 |
| | Han Daiduo said: "Regulations stipulate that sī and hemp mourning attire should be worn for the burial, and after the burial it is lifted. This refers to children mourning their father, wives and concubines mourning their husband, subjects mourning their ruler, and grandchildren mourning their paternal grandfather as successors." There are no rites for sending offerings. The rest of the relatives all wear mourning attire for condolences."
|
| | 改葬服議: |
魏王肅云：「司徒文子改葬，其叔父問服於子思。子思曰：『禮，父母改葬，緦而除，不忍無服送至親也。』」肅又云：「本有三年之服者，道有遠近，或有艱故，既葬而除，不待有三月之服也。非父母，無服，無服則弔服加麻。」 |
| | Wei Wang Su said: "Situ Wenzhen arranged a reburial, and his uncle asked about the mourning attire to be worn from Zi Si. Zi Si said: 'According to rites, when parents are reburied, sī is worn and then lifted; one cannot bear to be without mourning for a close relative.' " Su also said: "For those originally required to observe the three-year mourning period, journeys may vary in distance and there might be urgent or difficult circumstances; thus, they lift their mourning after burial, without waiting for the full three months of mourning. "For those who are not parents, there is no prescribed mourning attire; in such cases, one wears a mourning robe for condolences and adds hemp."
|
| | 改葬服議: |
晉袁準正論云：「喪無再服，然哀甚，不可無服。若終月數，是再服也。道遠則過之可也，道近旬月可也。或問何親服緦，大功以上可也。」 |
| | The Jin dynasty Yuan Zhun Zhenglun said: "Mourning should not be observed twice, yet if grief is profound, it would be inappropriate to have no mourning attire. If one observes the full number of months, this constitutes a second period of mourning. When the journey is distant, it may be passed over; when near, ten or several days would suffice. Someone asked which relatives should wear sī mourning attire: those with a mourning rank of da gong and above may do so."
|
| | 改葬服議: |
東晉賀循答傅純云：「鄭玄云三月者，以親睹尸柩，故三月以序其餘懷。但遲速不可限，故不在三月章也。王氏虞畢而除，且無正文。鄭得從重，故要記從之。」 |
| | Dongjin He Xun answered Fu Chun: "Zheng Xuan mentioned three months because one personally sees the corpse and coffin; thus, three months are observed to regulate the mourning of others' lingering grief. However, there should be no fixed limit on how long or short it is, so it does not fall under the chapter about three months." The Wang family lifted mourning after the Yu ceremony and there was also no official regulation. Zheng followed the heavier mourning, so it is important to record that he followed this practice."
|
| | 改葬服議: |
殷仲堪問范甯曰：「從兄道林營遷改事，先儒並不疑緦服，代所多用，且當依行。至於釋除，王鄭不同，何者為允？」甯答曰：「改葬者非常，故不在五服之章。葬遲者自當以畢事為斷，亦猶久喪服踰三年。」又云：「父喪未葬，主喪者不除。當其為主，五服皆然。苟有事故，葬必踰期，此非常之通服也。」 |
| | Yin Zhongkan asked Fan Ning: "My cousin Daolin is arranging a relocation and reburial. Earlier scholars did not doubt the use of sī mourning, it has been widely used in our time, and we should follow this practice. "As for when to lift the mourning, Wang and Zheng have different views; which one is correct?" Ning replied: "A reburial is an exceptional matter, so it does not belong to the chapter on the five mourning ranks. For those whose burial is delayed, they should naturally take the completion of the matter as their cutoff point; this is similar to mourning that lasts longer than three years. It also says: "When a father's funeral has not yet taken place, the one in charge of the mourning rites should not lift their mourning attire. While they are in charge, this applies to all five mourning ranks. If there is an unexpected event or matter, the burial will inevitably be delayed beyond its scheduled time; this is a common exception to normal mourning practices."
|
| | 改葬服議: |
成帝咸和四年，太尉庾亮改葬，服齊縗。咸康三年，司空何充改葬亦然。蔡謨以為改葬斬縗，禮言緦者，謂緦親以上皆反服也。 |
| | In the fourth year of Xianhe reign period of Emperor Chengdi, the Taifu Yu Liang arranged a reburial and wore the qici mourning attire. In the third year of Xiankang reign period, Sikong He Chong also arranged a reburial under similar practices. Cai Mo believed that for a reburial one should wear zan ci mourning attire; the rites mention sī, meaning those of sī rank and above all revert to wearing mourning.
|
| | 改葬服議: |
范汪與江惇書曰：「孝子重睹靈櫬，哀心慟踊，何以緦服臨至親之喪，三月而除。此乃儀禮數字，了無首尾，今人有疑。孫放改葬其祖，放開壙，服斬縗，一門反服。從行者待柩至，以縗絰迎於郊。二月事畢，放父四月晦除，放兄弟二月晦除，此皆反服。」 |
| | Fan Wang, in a letter to Jiang Dun, said: "A filial son who sees the coffin again feels deep sorrow and grief; how can one wear sī mourning for the funeral of such a close relative and lift it after only three months. "This is merely a numerical detail in the Rites, with no beginning or end to its logic; people today find this confusing." Sun Fang arranged a reburial for his grandfather. When he opened the tomb, he wore zan ci mourning attire, and all members of his family reverted to wearing mourning attire accordingly. Those accompanying him waited until the coffin arrived, then met it in the suburbs with ci di (hemp and cord mourning attire). The matter was completed by the second month; Fang's father lifted his mourning on the last day of the fourth month, while Fang and his brothers did so on the last day of the second month. These were all cases of reverting to mourning attire."
|
| | 改葬服議: |
何琦云：「皇祖恩遠，猶不敢以輕服服之，況以緦臨父母之葬乎！若傳重之孫改葬其父，則為二斬，於禮亦違順。鄭玄三月之義，則進退有疑。從王肅虞除之文，則就吉倉卒。從蔡謨，則關於二斬。且喪服齊縗三月之例，而緦無異條也。」 |
| | He Qi said: "The kindness of a great-grandfather, though distant in time, is still not treated with light mourning attire; how much more so for wearing sī at the burial of one's parents! If a grandson, who is in mourning of a higher rank, arranges a reburial for his father, this would result in two periods of zan mourning, which also violates the proper order of rites. Zheng Xuan's interpretation regarding three months leaves one uncertain whether to proceed or retreat. Following Wang Su's text about lifting mourning after the Yu ceremony, one would return to normal life in a hurried manner. Following Cai Mo, it leads to concerns over two periods of zan mourning. Moreover, the example of qici mourning for three months in mourning attire does not have a separate provision for sī."
|
| | 改葬服議: |
王濛曰：「改葬緦，奪之以斬可也。今若極重制於旬日，同至痛於始哀，而就吉不漸，於禮有疑。」于濟答曰：「蔡謨云：傳云不以兄弟之服服至尊者，乃始喪正服耳。且斬縗之末，便自縞冠麻衣，乃輕於緦麻，然猶以服至尊矣。」 |
| | Wang Meng said: "For a reburial with sī, it is acceptable to elevate the mourning rank to zan. If today one imposes an extremely heavy mourning period for only ten days, equating the intense grief to that of initial sorrow and immediately returning to normal life without a gradual transition, this raises doubts about its conformity with rites." Yu Ji replied: "Cai Mo said: The commentary says that one does not wear mourning for a brother when mourning the highest rank, but this refers only to the initial proper mourning attire. Moreover, at the end of zan ci mourning, one simply wears a plain cap and hemp clothing, which is lighter than sī and hemp attire; yet it is still considered appropriate for mourning the highest rank."
|
| | 改葬服議: |
范宣曰：「斬縗，既葬則布同於齊縗，既練則同大功，大祥之後，略如緦麻，禮之次序也。安得反服始服不從其變？又改葬緦，服三月者非也，直訖葬為斷矣。若改葬不過一旬，安可便脫乎。禮云一時，時踰思變，故取節焉。若道遠艱故，不得時畢，則猶禮云久喪不葬，主喪者不除，可待葬訖而除。」 |
| | Fan Xuan said: "Zan ci mourning—after burial, the hemp attire is the same as qici; after the l 练 ceremony, it becomes equivalent to da gong; and after the Da Xiang ceremony, it is roughly similar to sī and hemp, which follows the order of rites. How can one revert to initial mourning attire without following its prescribed changes? Furthermore, it is incorrect to say that for a reburial in sī one should observe mourning for three months; the mourning period simply ends with the completion of the burial. If a reburial takes no more than ten days, how can one immediately remove their mourning attire? The rites say 'one season,' because after the passage of time and reflection on change, a regulation is established to observe this period. If the journey is distant or there are difficulties, and it cannot be completed within the season, then as the rites say, in cases of prolonged mourning where burial has not taken place, those responsible for the mourning should not lift their attire; they may wait until after the burial to do so."
|
| | 改葬服議: |
元帝建武初，以溫嶠為散騎侍郎，嶠以母亡值寇，不臨殯葬，欲營改葬，固讓不拜。詔曰：「溫嶠不拜，以未得改卜葬送，朝議又頗有異同。古人之制三年，非情之所盡，存亡有斷，不以死傷生耳。腰絰而服金革之役者，豈營官邪？隨王事之緩急也。今桀逆未梟，平陽道斷，奉迎諸軍猶未得徑進，嶠特一身，於何濟其私艱，而以理閡自疑，不服王命邪！其令三司八座詳議。」於是太宰、西陽王羕等議：「昔伍員挾弓去楚，為吳行人以謀楚，志在報讎，不苟滅身也。溫嶠遭難，昔在河朔，日尋干戈，志刷讎惡，萬里投身，歸赴朝廷，將欲因時竭力，憑賴王威，以展其情，此乃嶠之志也。」有司奏：「按去建武元年辛未詔書，依禮久喪未葬，唯喪主不除。以他故未葬，人子之情，不可居殯而除，故期於畢葬，無遠近之斷也。若亡遇賊難，喪靈無處，求索理絕，固應三年而除，不得固從未葬之例也。按辛未之制，已有成斷，皆不得復遂私情，不服王命，以虧法憲。參議可如前詔嶠受拜，重告中丞司徒，諸如嶠比者，依東關故事、辛未令書之制。」嶠不得已，乃拜。 |
| | At the beginning of the Jianwu reign period of Emperor Yuandi, Wen Qiao was appointed as Sanqi Shilang. Qiao declined the appointment because his mother had died during a time of banditry and he could not attend her funeral; he wished to arrange a reburial instead and firmly refused the position. The imperial edict stated: "Wen Qiao did not accept the appointment because he had yet to arrange a new divination for burial and funeral rites; there were also differing opinions in court discussions. The ancient regulation of three years was not meant to exhaust one's emotions, but rather to establish a clear boundary between life and death; it is not about letting the dead harm the living. Those who wear mourning cords while serving in military campaigns, are they seeking official positions? It depends on the urgency of state affairs. Now, the rebels have not yet been defeated and the road to Pingyang is cut off; even the troops sent for retrieval cannot proceed directly. Qiao is merely an individual—how could he resolve his personal difficulties? How can he use this as a reason to doubt himself and refuse the imperial command! Therefore, order the Three Boards and Eight Ministers to deliberate carefully." Thus, Taicai and Prince Xiyang Wang Yang and others deliberated: "In the past, Wu Yuan took up arms to leave Chu, became an envoy for Wu to plot against Chu, with his intent focused on revenge, not merely on self-destruction. Wen Qiao encountered hardship in the past while in He Shuo, daily engaging in warfare with weapons, determined to avenge his grudges. Traveling thousands of miles, he threw himself into the imperial court and wished to seize the opportunity to exert all his strength, relying on the emperor's authority to express his loyalty—this was Qiao's aspiration." The officials submitted a report: "According to the imperial edict of Xinwei day in the first year of Jianwu, according to rites, for prolonged mourning where burial has not yet taken place, only those responsible for the funeral should not lift their mourning. If burial has not taken place due to other reasons, the feelings of a son cannot allow him to lift mourning while the body remains in the bier; thus, one should wait until the burial is completed, regardless of distance or time. If a corpse was lost due to bandit attacks and there is no place to find it, with all efforts to locate it having failed, one should naturally observe mourning for three years and cannot rigidly follow the example of those whose burials have not yet taken place. According to the regulations established on Xinwei day, there is already a clear decision; no one may again pursue personal emotions or refuse imperial commands, thereby violating laws and statutes. It is recommended that, as previously decreed, Qiao should accept the appointment. The Censor-in-Chief and Grand Tutor shall be informed again; those in similar situations to Qiao shall follow the precedent of Dongguan and the regulations set forth on Xinwei day." Qiao had no choice but to accept the appointment.
|
| | 改葬服議: |
宋庾蔚之謂：「改葬所以緦而不重者，當以送亡有已，復生有節。若用始亡之服，則是死其親，故制緦以示變吉。既有其服，若旬月而葬，則當如鄭玄說，卒緦之限，三月而除。若葬過三月者，須葬畢釋服，服為葬設故也。」 |
| | Song Yuyi said: "The reason why a change of burial is observed only with the light mourning of si but not heavier rites is because, once the deceased has been sent off and their journey concluded, there must be limits to further actions for the living. If one were to wear mourning as if it were the initial death, then it would be equivalent to killing one's loved ones again; thus, the regulation prescribes si mourning to indicate a return to auspiciousness. Once this mourning is observed, if the burial takes place within a few weeks or months, then according to Zheng Xuan's interpretation, one should complete the period of si mourning and lift it after three months. If burial is delayed beyond three months, then one must wait until the funeral is completed before removing mourning attire, for such mourning rites are established specifically in preparation for the burial."
|
| | 改葬服議: |
後魏明帝神龜元年，侍中、國子祭酒崔光上言：「被臺祠部曹符，文昭皇太后改葬，議至尊、皇太子、群臣服制輕重。四門博士劉季明議：按喪服記雖云『改葬緦』，文無指據，至於注解，乖異不同。又太常博士鄭六議云：『竊謂鄭玄得服緦之旨，謬三月之言。如臣所見，請依服緦，既葬為除。』實以為允。」詔可。 |
| | In the first year of Shengui reign, during the Later Wei Mingdi period, Shi Zhong and Guozi Jiaoshi Cui Guang submitted a statement: "I received an official notice from the Tai Ci Bu Cao department regarding the relocation of Empress Wen Zhao's tomb. We are to deliberate on the appropriate mourning attire for the Son of Heaven, the Crown Prince, and the ministers." Liu Jiming, a Si Men Bo Shi, argued: "Although the Records of Mourning Attire mention 'si mourning for relocation of burial,' there is no clear textual basis. As for annotations and interpretations, they differ greatly." Also, Tai Chang Bo Shi Zheng Liu argued: "I believe that Zheng Xuan correctly understood the intent of wearing si mourning but erred in his statement about three months." "As I see it, we should follow the rule for si mourning and lift the mourning attire after burial is completed." This was indeed considered acceptable. The imperial edict approved it.
|
| | 母非罪被... : |
|
| |
|
| | 母非罪被... : |
晉王澹、王沈與其叔征南將軍昶書曰：「亡母少修婦道，事慈姑二十餘年，不幸久寢篤疾，會東郡君初到官而李夫人亡。是時亡母所苦困劇，不任臨喪。東郡君自痛遠不得嘗藥，而婦宜親侍疾而不得臨終，手書責遣，載病大歸，遂至殞亡。東郡君後深悼恨之。慈妣存無過行，沒荷出名。春秋之義，原心定罪。乞迎亡母神柩，改葬墓田。上當先姑慈愛之恩，次釋先君既往之恨，下蠲亡靈無負之恥。」 |
| | Prince Jin Wang Dan and Wang Shen wrote a letter to their uncle, the General of the Southern Expedition Chang: "My late mother cultivated proper conduct as a wife from an early age, serving her kind grandmother for more than twenty years. Unfortunately, she has long suffered from a serious illness. At this time, Dongjun Jun She died shortly after I assumed office. At that time, my late mother was suffering greatly from her illness and could not bear the grief of attending the funeral. Dongjun Jun was deeply grieved that he could not personally administer medicine to her from afar, and that his daughter-in-law should have been by her bedside but failed to be present at the end. He wrote a letter rebuking and sending her away, returning home while still ill She eventually passed away. Dongjun Jun later deeply mourned and regretted it. My kind mother, while alive, had no misconduct; after her death, she was honored with a posthumous name. According to the principles of Spring and Autumn Annals, one's intentions are considered in determining guilt. I humbly request permission to retrieve my late mother's spirit coffin and reinter her remains in the family burial ground. "To honor above all my late grandmother's kindness and love, to next relieve my late father of his past regrets, and below, to remove the shame that my departed spirit has unjustly borne."
|
| | 母非罪被... : |
博士薛諝議以為：「春秋原心定罪，仲尼稱父有諍子，然則論罪不可以不原心，為子不可以不義諍。來書云尊親以不幸遘疾，不任理喪。禮，疾則飲酒食肉，蓋急於性命而權正禮也。夫厚養忘哀，禮之所許，況尊親嬰沉篤疾而被七出之罰乎！向使曩時家有壯子，明證本末，直道而爭，豈令慈母以非罪受不義哉！考諸典禮，稽之原情，其昭告先靈，還安兆域，使嚴父無違理之舉，慈母雪沒代之恥，不亦可乎！」沈重與叔昶書述薛議，其叔答許之。 |
| | The scholar Xue Xu argued: "According to the Spring and Autumn Annals, judgment should be based on one's intentions. Confucius praised a son who dared to remonstrate with his father. Therefore, when determining guilt, one cannot fail to consider intention; as a son, one cannot refrain from justly remonstrating." Your letter states that your honored parent encountered illness through misfortune and was unable to manage the funeral arrangements. According to ritual, when one is ill, it is permissible to drink alcohol and eat meat; this is an adjustment of proper rites in favor of preserving life. To provide generous care while forgetting grief is permitted by ritual; how much more so when a parent suffers from a severe illness and yet faces the punishment of being cast out! Had there been a strong son at that time in the family to clearly present the facts and justly argue his case, how could it have allowed a kind mother to suffer unjust punishment for no fault of her own! Examining the classical rites and considering the original circumstances, it is clear that this should be announced to the ancestors' spirits, and return her remains for proper burial in the designated family cemetery, so that my strict father has no action contrary to reason and my kind mother is cleared of a disgrace unjustly borne after death—would this not be appropriate!" Shen Zhong wrote to his uncle Chang, recounting Xue's opinion; his uncle replied and agreed.
|
| | 母非罪被... : |
沈祭先考東郡君文云：「孝子沈敢昭告烈考東郡君：沈亡母郭氏，恪勤婦道，齊孝之節，克順於先姑。天降氛氣，鴈門太夫人遘疾歷旬，郭時又遇篤疾，弗獲嘗禱，夫人不幸，遂至殞沒。烈考卒承大變，憂慟荒迷，未詳聽察，謂郭供養有闕，遂載病大歸，尋便殞亡，烈考深用悼恨。澹及沈仰惟烈考舊心，鑒亡妣素行，不迎之議，考禮度哀，未及施行，澹不幸夭沒。沈敢述澹意，謀之通儒，咨之邦族，咸以為亡妣宜時改葬。沈輒受命於征南君，謹詣鄴迎郭靈柩，以某月日安厝，庶順烈考之舊心，全祖親之慈愛者也。」 |
| | Shen's memorial to his late father Dongjun Jun reads: "The filial son Shen dares to solemnly announce to my esteemed father, Dongjun Jun: My late mother Guo Shi diligently observed the duties of a wife; her virtue in filial piety and chastity was exemplary, and she remained obedient to her predecessor grandmother." Heaven sent ominous signs; Tai Fu Ren of Yanmen fell seriously ill for many days. At that time, Guo also suffered from a grave illness and was unable to offer prayers or remedies. The lady unfortunately passed away, thus meeting her end. My esteemed father, upon encountering this great calamity, was overwhelmed with grief and confusion, failing to carefully investigate the matter. He believed that Guo had neglected her duties of care, so he sent her back in ill health; soon after she passed away, my esteemed father deeply mourned and regretted his actions. Dan and Shen, looking back on their late father's original intentions, reflected upon the virtuous conduct of their deceased mother. They had not yet acted on the decision to refrain from retrieving her remains, when Dan unfortunately died young. Shen dares to convey Dan's intentions, consulting learned scholars and seeking advice from the clan; all agreed that their late mother should be reinterred at an appropriate time. Shen accepted orders from General of the Southern Expedition, carefully went to Ye to retrieve the spirit coffin of Guo, and on a certain day in a certain month placed it for burial. This was done so as to fulfill my late father's original wishes and preserve the kindness and love of our ancestors."
|
| | 改葬反虞... : |
|
| |
|
| | 改葬反虞... : |
晉尚書下問改葬應虞與不。按王肅喪服記云：「改葬緦，既虞而除之。」傅純難曰：「夫葬以藏形，廟以安神，改葬之神在廟久矣，安得退之於寢而虞之乎？若虞之於寢，則當復還祔於廟，不得但虞而已。」國子祭酒荀訥以為：「虞，安神之祭。神已在廟，改葬不應復虞，虞則有主。訥謂純言為當。」 |
| | The Jin dynasty's Minister of Rites asked whether the posthumous reburial of Ying Yu should be approved or not. According to Wang Su's Records on Mourning Attire, it says: "For a reburial, the mourning attire of si is observed and removed after the yu ceremony." Fu Chun raised an objection, saying: "Burial is for housing the body, and the ancestral temple is for honoring the spirit. The spirit of a reburied person has long resided in the temple; how can it be moved back to the funerary chamber for the yu ceremony?" "If a yu ceremony is conducted in the funerary chamber, then one should also return and perform the shou rite at the ancestral temple; it cannot be merely limited to the yu ritual alone." Guozi Jiaoshi Xun Nei believed: "The yu rite is a sacrifice for settling the spirit. Once the spirit has already been enshrined in the temple, a reburial should not involve another yu rite; if one does perform it, then there must be an ancestral tablet present." Nei considered Chun's statement to be correct."
|
| | 改葬反虞... : |
韓虯問賀循曰：「按傅純曰問鄭氏改葬三月，又譏王氏以既虞為節，云『改葬之神在廟久矣，不應復虞』。見府君所答，唯云宜三月，謂王氏為短，鄭為長，而不答應虞之義，此為應虞否也？」循答曰：「凡移葬者，必先設祭告墓而開拨，從墓至墓皆設奠，如將葬朝廟之禮。意亦有疑。既設奠於墓，所以終其事，必爾者，雖非正虞，亦似虞之一隅也，但不得如常虞還祭殯宮耳。故不甚非王氏，但不許其便除。然禮無正文，是以不明言也。」 |
| | Han Qiu asked He Xun, "According to Fu Chun's account, he inquired about Zhengshi's practice of a three-month reburial period and criticized Wangshi for regarding the completion of the yu rite as sufficient, saying 'the spirit of a reburied ancestor has long resided in the ancestral temple; therefore, it should not be subjected to another yu ceremony.'" "Observing the reply given by our late lord, he merely stated that three months is appropriate, calling Wangshi's view too brief and Zhengshi's as longer, yet did not address the meaning of conducting a yu rite. Is this an indication whether or not a yu ceremony should be performed?" Xun replied, "In general, for any relocation of a burial, one must first hold a sacrifice to inform the grave before commencing excavation. Offerings are set up from the original tomb to the new site, following the same rites as when preparing to bury and offering homage at the ancestral temple in the morning." There is also some uncertainty about this. Since offerings are set up at the grave, this serves to complete the matter. If one does so in such a way, although it is not an orthodox yu rite, it seems akin to a partial aspect of the yu ceremony; however, it cannot be conducted like a regular yu rite by returning to offer sacrifices at the funerary chamber. Therefore, I do not strongly oppose Wangshi's view, but I do not permit the immediate removal of mourning attire. "However, since there is no explicit passage in the rites to support this, it cannot be clearly stated."
|
| | 改葬反虞... : |
殷仲堪問范甯曰：「荀訥議太后改葬，既據言不虞，朝廷所用，賀要記云三月便止，何也？」甯答曰：「賀無此文，或好事者為之邪？不見馬、鄭、賀、范說改葬有虞。神已在廟，虞何為哉！」 |
| | Yin Zhongkan asked Fan Ning, "Minister Xun Nei discussed the empress dowager's reburial and cited arguments against conducting a yu rite for it. The court adopted this view; however, He Yaoji recorded that mourning was lifted after three months. Why is this so?" Ning replied, "He Yaoji did not write such a passage; perhaps it was added by someone with an interest in the matter?" I have not seen Ma, Zheng, He, or Fan mention that there is a yu rite for reburials. "If the spirit has already resided in the temple, what purpose would another yu ceremony serve!"
|
| | 改葬反虞... : |
宋庾蔚之謂：「神已在廟，無所復虞。但先祭而開墓，將窆而奠，事畢而祭靈，遂毀靈座。若棺毀更斂，則宜有大斂之奠。若移喪遠葬，又有祖奠、遣奠也。」 |
| | Song dynasty's Yu Weizhi said: "The spirit has already resided in the ancestral temple, so there is no need for another yu rite. However, one should first hold a sacrifice before opening the grave, offer sacrifices when preparing for reburial, and after completing all matters, perform a final offering to the spirit tablet, then proceed to destroy it." If the coffin is destroyed and needs to be replaced with new burial wrappings, then an appropriate sacrifice for a major reburial should be conducted. "If the remains are moved over long distances for reburial, there should also be ancestral and farewell sacrifices."
|
| | 父母墓毀... : |
|
| |
|
| | 父母墓毀... : |
東晉大興二年，司徒荀組表言：「王路漸通，士人得視拨墓，多聞凶問，朝野所行不同，或有制重斬杖者，復有制齊縗三月、緦麻三月者，直素服盡哀者。人生不同，性有厚薄，是以聖人制禮居中，使賢者俯就，不肖者企及。臣謂墓毀之制，改葬緦麻，當包之矣。鄭康成、王子雍皆云棺毀見屍，痛之極也。今遇賊見毀，理無輕重也。以禮無明文，行者致異。臣以為宜使明禮大臣議為正制。」詔：「司徒表，禮雖無墳墓毀廢正文，然依附名例，不為無準。吾謂改葬緦，通制也。已修復，不臨尸柩，素服可也。而士大夫率意輕重不同，其下太常議定。」國子祭酒杜夷議：「墓既脩復而後聞問，宜依春秋新宮之災，哭而不服。」博士江淵議：「凡所以改葬者，必由丘墓崩壞露殯，其痛一也。愚以為發墓依改葬，服緦三月。漢時有盜高廟寶器者，達理之士以為其罪輕於長陵之土。雖同至於敬，事實有異。愚以為墓毀更復不應比廟災而不行服也。」侍中黃門侍郎江啟表：「按鄭玄云：『親見尸柩，不可無服。』如鄭義以見而服，不見不服也。司徒臨潁前表改葬之緦，不以吉臨凶。今聽其墳墓毀發，依改葬服緦麻，不得奔赴。及已修復者，唯心喪縞素，深衣白幘，哭臨三月。」 |
| | In the second year of Daxing in the Eastern Jin dynasty, Siku Xun Zu presented a memorial stating: "The royal road is gradually opening; scholars are able to visit and clear their ancestral tombs, but often hear bad news. The practices of officials and commoners differ; some have decrees prescribing severe punishment by beheading or caning, while others have decrees requiring mourning in qicui for three months and sima for another three months, or simply wearing plain clothes until the grief is exhausted." People's lives differ; their natures vary in depth and shallowness. Therefore, the sage established rites as a moderate standard, enabling the virtuous to conform and the unworthy to strive toward it. I believe that the regulations regarding destroyed tombs should include reburial in sima, which would cover all necessary provisions. Zheng Kangcheng and Wang Ziyong both stated that if the coffin is destroyed and the corpse is exposed, it represents the utmost grief. Now, when encountering bandits who destroy [the tomb], there should be no distinction in severity of punishment. Since the rites do not provide explicit wording, those who act upon them have differing interpretations. I believe it is appropriate to entrust clearly learned ministers of rites with deliberating and establishing a proper regulation." The imperial edict stated: "The memorial from the Siku, although the rites do not contain explicit provisions regarding destroyed or abandoned ancestral tombs, yet by referring to established principles and examples, it is not without a standard. I believe that reburial in sima is a general regulation. If the tomb has already been restored, and one does not personally attend to the corpse or coffin, then plain mourning attire would suffice. Yet scholars and officials have applied varying degrees of leniency or severity at their discretion; therefore, the matter should be submitted to Taichang for deliberation and determination." Du Yi, the head of the Guozi Academy, proposed: "If one learns of the destruction after the tomb has already been repaired, it should follow the precedent in Chunqiu regarding the disaster at Xingong, where mourning is expressed through weeping but without wearing formal mourning attire." Jiang Yuan, the Doctor, proposed: "In all cases where reburial is necessary, it must be due to a collapsed tomb exposing the remains; the grief in such situations is essentially the same. I believe that when a tomb is disturbed and reburial becomes necessary, one should observe mourning for three months in sima. During the Han dynasty, there were thieves who stole treasures from the Gao Temple; enlightened scholars considered their crime to be less severe than disturbing the soil of Changling. Although both cases ultimately relate to reverence, the actual circumstances differ. I believe that if a tomb is destroyed but later restored, it should not be compared to a temple disaster and thus one should still observe mourning." Jiang Qi, the Shizhong Huangmen Shilang, presented a memorial: "According to Zheng Xuan's statement: 'If one personally sees the corpse or coffin, mourning attire cannot be dispensed with.'" Following Zheng's interpretation, if one sees [the remains], then mourning is observed; if not seen, it is unnecessary. The Siku Linying previously stated in his memorial that reburial should be mourned in sima; one does not attend a funeral with joyous intentions. Now, if the tomb is destroyed or disturbed, mourning should be observed in sima as for reburial, but one must not rush to the site. For those whose tombs have already been restored, only heartfelt mourning in plain white garments is required; one should wear a deep robe and a white headpiece, weep at the tomb for three months."
|
| | 父母墓毀... : |
孔仰墓毀論曰：「按禮，聖人制殯葬之意，蓋以死者不可復存，而孝子不忍棄其親，故為棺槨葬埋。推其本心，固在棄之，棄之中為禮節以順孝子情耳。原聖人之意，蓋以無知處之形骸，故以幽閉長久為安；以有知為神靈，故以清陽博廟尊嚴為顯。尊嚴故可修，潛隱故不犯，比之丘陵，同之自然而不敢修。若遇寇發露，可以補復其外，而不可改內。哭泣之日，以事訖為節。故廟災有三日哭之之文，墓毀無制哭之日。篤推大理，恐不加異於廟災也。苟以無知處之，則雖加開發，不能益死者之苦，但人情不忍見聞。見聞之日有哭泣，一日、五日或十日，過者不足褒，不及不足貶，故聖人不為之禮。」 |
| | Kong Yang's discussion on the destruction of tombs states: "According to rites, the intention behind the sage establishing funeral and burial practices is that since the dead cannot return to life, filial sons are unwilling to abandon their loved ones; therefore, coffins and burials were established. Tracing the fundamental intention, it is indeed to abandon [the body], but within this abandonment, rites and propriety are established as a means to regulate filial emotions. Considering the sage's intent, it is because the lifeless body, devoid of awareness, should be placed in a quiet and enduring resting place for peace; the soul or spirit, which is conscious, is therefore honored through clear and elevated ancestral temples as a sign of reverence. Because the temple represents dignity, it can be maintained; because the tomb is hidden and quiet, it should not be disturbed. Compared to hills and mountains, they are regarded as natural and left untouched out of reverence. If a tomb is encountered by bandits and the remains exposed, one may repair its exterior but must not disturb what lies within. The days of weeping should be regulated according to when the matter is concluded. Therefore, there are written regulations specifying three days of mourning for a temple disaster, but no prescribed number of days for weeping over a destroyed tomb. Carefully considering the principles of law and propriety, it seems unreasonable to treat a destroyed tomb differently from a temple disaster. If one considers the body as lifeless and devoid of awareness, then even if it is disturbed or exposed, it cannot increase the deceased's suffering; yet human feelings make it unbearable to witness such a thing. The days of weeping upon witnessing the disturbance may be one day, five days, or ten days; those who exceed this are not necessarily to be praised, and those who fall short are not necessarily to be blamed. Therefore, sages did not establish specific rites for it."
|
| | 父母墓毀... : |
永和十二年，修復峻平四陵。大使開陵表，至尊及百官皆服緦。尚書符問：皇太后應何服。博士曹耽、胡訥議：「為人後者為之子，元帝繼武帝，於康帝為曾祖。禮，為曾祖後斬縗三年，小記與諸侯為兄弟者斬縗，則無齊。皇太后宜正服斬縗，改葬當緦。鄭注止於臣、子、妻，王氏通謂三年者。王氏近情，則宜緦。」領國子博士荀訥議：「如鄭玄注，則皇太后不應有服緦。謂今皇太后上奉宗廟，下臨朝臣，宜有變禮，不得準之常制。」太常王彪之上言：「二學博士荀訥、曹耽等議如右，臣雖與之同議，議各有辭。太后臨朝稱制，體同皇極，則亦宜服緦，議有二君之嫌。」尚書范汪亦同彪之，云「太后臨朝，君禮有何不盡，而君何疑於服？」遂上皇太后緦服。 |
| | In the twelfth year of Yonghe, the four mausoleums—Jiuping—were restored. The Grand Envoy who opened the tomb submitted a memorial; the Son of Heaven and all officials wore sima mourning attire. Shangshu Fu asked: What mourning should the Empress Dowager observe? Doctors Cao Dan and Hu Ne proposed: "One who succeeds as heir is considered a son. Yuan Di succeeded Wu Di, making him the great-grandfather of Kang Di. According to rites, one who is the heir to a great-grandfather should observe qicui mourning for three years. In minor records and among brothers of feudal lords, qicui is observed without qiqi. The Empress Dowager should properly observe qicui mourning; for reburial, sima would be appropriate. Zheng's annotations apply only to subjects, sons, and wives, while Wang's interpretation universally prescribes three years of mourning. Wang's view is more in line with human sentiment; therefore, sima would be suitable." Xun Ne, the head of Guozi doctors, proposed: "According to Zheng Xuan's annotations, the Empress Dowager should not observe mourning in sima. It is said that since the current Empress Dowager reverently serves the ancestral temple above and oversees court officials below, there should be a modification of rites; it cannot follow ordinary regulations." Wang Biao, the Taichang, submitted: "The two schools' doctors Xun Ne and Cao Dan et al. have proposed as above; although I participated in the discussion with them, our arguments differ. The Empress Dowager, who rules from court and issues decrees, holds a status equal to the Son of Heaven; therefore, she should also observe mourning in sima. However, this proposal raises concerns about implying two sovereigns." Shangshu Fan Wang also agreed with Biao Zhi, stating: "When the Empress Dowager rules from court, what aspect of royal rites is incomplete? Why should there be any doubt about mourning attire for a sovereign?" Thus, it was decided that the Empress Dowager would observe mourning in sima.
|
| | 父母墓毀... : |
或問曰：「曾祖墓、從祖墓毀發，哭制云何？」范宣曰：「禮不見在遠，直聞墓發，制唯經見改葬緦。此施臣、子、妻，是承嫡者當依此禮。非嫡有降，但三日哭，從祖一日哭可也。」 |
| | Someone asked: "If the tomb of a great-granduncle or uncle is destroyed, how should one regulate the mourning and weeping?" Fan Xuan replied: "According to rites, if one is far away and only hears of the tomb being disturbed, then the regulation applies only to reburial in sima. This rule applies to subjects, sons, and spouses; those who inherit as legitimate heirs should follow this rite. Those who are not the legitimate heir may reduce their mourning, observing only three days of weeping; for a great-granduncle, one day of weeping would suffice."
|
| | 父母墓毀... : |
宋庾蔚之謂：「人子之情無可輟，聖人以禮斷之，故改葬所服，不過於緦。緦服雖輕，而用情甚重。意謂聞其親屍柩毀露，及更葬，便應制服奔往。縱已修復，亦應臨赴。苟途路阻礙，猶宜制服緦，依三月而除。豈可以不及葬事便宴然不服乎！」 |
| | Yu Wei Zhi of the Song dynasty said: "A son's feelings cannot be cut off, but sages use rites to regulate them; therefore, mourning for reburial should not exceed sima. Although the mourning in sima is light, the emotional significance it carries is great. The intent is that upon hearing of one's relative's corpse or coffin being destroyed and exposed, and when reburial occurs, mourning attire should be worn and one must rush to the site. Even if it has already been restored, one should still personally attend. If the journey is obstructed, one should still wear sima mourning and observe it for three months before removing it. How can one remain indifferent and not mourn simply because they did not attend the burial!"
|
| | 父母墓毀... : |
梁天監元年，齊臨川獻王所生妾謝墓被發，不至埏門。蕭子晉傳重，咨禮官何佟之。議以為：「改葬服緦，見柩不可無服故也。此止侵土墳，不及於槨，可依新宮火處，三日哭假而已。」帝以為得禮也。 |
| | In the first year of Tianjian in the Liang dynasty, the concubine Xie, who bore Prince Linchuan of Qi, had her tomb disturbed; she did not reach the yamen. Xiao Zijin transmitted this matter to He Tongzhi for consultation with the rites officials. The discussion concluded: "Mourning in sima should be observed for reburial, because if one sees the coffin, mourning attire cannot be omitted. This case involves only the disturbance of a simple earthen tomb and does not reach the coffin; it may be treated like the fire at Xingong, with three days of weeping and leave for mourning." The emperor considered this to be in accordance with rites.
|
