<Previous Section>
<Next Section>

四諱篇

俗有大諱四: 一曰諱西益宅。西益宅謂之不祥,不祥必有死亡。相懼以此,故世莫敢西益宅。 防禁所從來者遠矣。

《傳》曰:「魯哀公欲西益宅,史爭〔之〕,以為不祥。哀公作色而怒,左右數諫而弗聽,〔乃〕以問其傅宰質睢曰: 『吾欲西益宅,史以為不祥,何如?』

宰質睢曰:『天下有三不祥,西益宅不與焉。』

哀公大說。有頃,復問曰:『何謂三不祥?』對曰:『不行禮義,一不祥也;嗜欲無止,二不祥也;不聽規諫,三不祥也。』

哀公繆然深惟,慨然自反,遂不〔西〕益宅。令史與宰質睢止其益宅,徒為煩擾,則西益宅祥與不祥,未可知也。

令史〔與〕質睢以為西益宅審不祥,則史與質睢與今俗人等也。」 夫宅之四面皆地也,三面不謂之凶,益西面獨謂不祥,何哉?西益宅,何傷於地體?何害於宅神?西益不祥,損之能善乎?西益不祥,東益能吉 乎?夫不祥必有祥者,猶不吉必有吉矣。

宅有形體,神有吉凶,動德致福,犯刑起禍。今言西益宅謂之不祥,何益而祥者?且惡人西益宅者誰也?如地惡之, 益東家之西,損西家之東,何傷於地?

如以宅神不欲西益,神猶人也,人之處宅,欲得廣大,何故惡之?而以宅神惡煩擾,則四(而)〔面〕益宅,皆當不祥。

諸工技之家,說吉凶之占,皆有事狀。宅家言治宅犯凶神,移徙言忌歲月,祭祀言觸血忌,喪葬言犯剛柔,皆有鬼神凶惡之禁。人不忌避,有病死之禍。至於西益宅何害而謂之不祥?不祥之禍,何以為敗?

實說其義,「不祥」者、義理之禁,非吉凶之忌也。夫西方、長老之地,尊者之位也。尊長在西,卑幼在東。尊長、主也 ,卑幼、助也。主少而助多,尊無二上,卑有百下也。西益(主)〔宅〕,益主不增助,二上不百下也,於義不善,故謂不祥。不祥者、 不宜也。於義不宜,未有凶也。何以明之?

夫墓、死人所藏,田、人所飲食,宅、人所居處。三者於人,吉凶宜等。西益宅不祥,西益墓與田,不言不祥。夫墓、死人所居,因忽不慎。田、非人所處,不設尊卑。宅者、長幼所共,加慎致意者,何可不之諱?義詳於宅,略於墓與田也。

二曰諱被刑為徒不上丘墓。但知不可,不能知其不可之意。問其禁之者,不能知其諱;受禁行者,亦不(要)〔曉〕其忌。連相放效,至或于被刑,父母死,不送葬;若至墓側,不敢臨葬;(甚)〔其〕失至於不行弔(傷)〔喪〕,見佗人之柩。

夫徒、善人也,被刑謂之徒。丘墓之上,二親也,死亡謂之先。宅與墓何別?親與先何異?

如以徒被刑,先人責之,則不宜入宅與親相見;如〔以〕徒不得與死人相見,則親死在堂,不得哭柩;如以徒不得 升丘墓,則徒不得上山陵。

世俗禁之,執據何義? 實說其意,徒不上丘墓有二義,義理之諱,非凶惡之忌也。

徒用心以為先祖全而生之,子孫亦當全而歸之。故曾子有疾,召門弟子曰:「開予足!開予手!而今而後,吾知免夫。小子!」

曾子重慎,臨絕效全,喜免毀傷之禍也。孔子曰:「身體髮膚,受之父母,弗敢毀傷。」

孝者怕入刑辟,刻畫身體,毀傷髮膚,少德泊行,不戒慎之所致也。愧負刑辱,深自刻責,故不升墓祀於先。

古禮廟祭,今俗墓祀,故不升墓,慚負先人。一義也。

墓者、鬼神所在,祭祀之處。祭祀之禮,齊戒潔清,重之至也。今已被刑,刑殘之人,不宜與祭供侍先人,卑謙謹敬, 退讓自賤之意也。緣先祖之意,見子孫被刑,惻怛憯傷,恐其臨祀,不忍歆享,故不上墓。二義也。

昔太伯見王季有聖子文王,知太王意欲立之,入吳采藥,斷髮文身,以隨吳俗。太王薨。太伯還,王季辟主。 太伯再讓,王季不聽。三讓,曰:「吾之吳、越,吳、越之俗,斷髮文身。吾刑餘之人,不可為宗廟社稷之主。」王季知不可,權而受之。

夫徒不上丘墓,太伯不為主之義也。是謂祭祀不可,非謂柩當葬、身不送也。

葬死人,先祖痛;見刑人,先祖哀。權可哀之身,送可痛之屍,使先祖有知,痛屍哀形,何愧之有?如使無知,丘墓、田野也, 何慚之有?

慚愧(先)者,謂身體刑殘,與人異也。古者(用)〔肉〕刑,形毀不全,乃 不可耳。方今象刑,象刑重者、髡鉗之法也。若完城旦以下,施刑綵衣系躬,冠帶與俗人殊,何為不可?世俗信而謂之皆凶 ,其失至於不弔鄉黨屍,不升佗人之丘,惑也。

三曰諱婦人乳子,以為不吉。將舉吉事,入山林,遠行,度川澤者,皆不與之交通。乳子之家,亦忌惡之,丘墓廬道畔,踰月乃 入,惡之甚也。暫卒見若為不吉。

極原其事,何以為惡? 夫婦人之乳子也,子含元氣而出。元氣、天地之精微也,何凶而惡之?人、物也,子、亦物也。子生與萬物之生何以異?諱人之生謂之 惡,萬物之生又惡之乎?

生與胞俱出,如以胞為不吉,人之有胞,猶木實之有(扶)〔枎〕也。包(裏)〔裹〕兒身,因與俱出,若鳥卵之有殼,何妨謂 之惡?如惡以為不吉,則諸生物有(扶)〔枎〕殼者,宜皆惡之。

萬物廣多,難以驗事。人生何以異於六畜?皆 含血氣懷子,子生與人無異,獨惡人而不憎畜,豈以人體大,氣血盛乎?則夫牛馬體大於人。

凡可惡之事,無與鈞等,獨有一物,不見比類,乃可疑也。今六畜與人無異,其乳皆同一狀。六畜與人無異,諱人 不諱六畜,不曉其故也。

世能別人之產與六畜之乳,吾將聽其諱;如不能別,則吾謂世俗所諱妄矣。

且凡人所惡,莫有腐臭。腐臭之氣,敗傷人心,故鼻聞臭,口食腐,心損口惡,霍亂嘔吐。夫更衣之室,可謂臭矣;鮑魚 之肉,可謂腐矣。然而有甘之更衣之室,不以為忌;肴食腐魚之肉,不以為諱。意不存以為惡,故不計其可與不也。

凡可憎惡者,若濺墨漆,附著人身。今目見鼻聞,一過則已,忽亡輒去,何故惡之?

出見負豕於塗,腐澌於溝,不以為凶者,洿辱 自在彼人,不著己之身也。今婦人乳子,自在其身,齋戒之人,何故忌之?

江北乳子,不出房室,知其無惡也。至於犬乳,置之宅外,此復惑也。江北諱犬不諱人,江南諱人不諱犬,謠俗防惡,各不同也。夫人與犬何以異?房室、宅外何以殊?或惡或不惡,或諱或不諱,世俗防禁,竟無經也。

月之晦也,日月合宿,紀為一月。猶八日,月中分謂之弦;十五日,日月相望謂之望;三十日,日月合宿謂之晦。晦與弦望一實也,非月晦日月光氣與月朔異也,何故踰月謂之吉乎?如實凶,踰月未可謂吉;如實吉,雖未踰月,猶為可也。

實說,諱忌產子、乳犬者,欲使人常自潔清,不欲使人被污辱也。夫自潔清則意精,意精則行清,行清而貞廉之節立矣。

四曰諱舉正月、五月子。以為正月、五月子殺父與母,不得〔舉也〕。已舉之,父母(禍)〔偶〕死,則信而謂之真矣。夫正月 、五月子何故殺父與母?

人之含氣,在腹腸之內,其生,十月而產,共一元氣也。正〔月〕與二月何殊?五〔月〕與六月何異?而謂之凶也?

世傳此言久〔矣〕,拘數之人,莫敢犯之;弘識大材,實核事理,深睹吉凶之分者,然後見之。

昔齊相田嬰賤妾有子,名之曰文。文以五月生。嬰告其母〔曰〕:「勿舉也。」其母竊舉生之。及長,其 母因兄弟而見其子文於嬰。

嬰怒曰:「吾令女去此子,而敢生之,何也?」文頓首,因曰:「君所以不舉五月子者,何故?」

嬰曰:「五月子者,長至戶,將不利其父母。」

文曰:「人生受命於天乎?將受命於戶邪?」嬰嘿然。文曰:「必受命於天,君何憂焉?如受命於戶,即高其戶,誰能至者?」

嬰善其言,曰:「子休矣!」其後使文主家待賓客,賓客日進,名聞諸侯。文長過戶而嬰不死。

以田文之說言之,以田嬰不死效之,世俗所諱,虛妄之言也。夫田嬰、俗父,而田文、雅子也。嬰信忌不實義,文信命不辟諱,雅俗異材,舉措殊操,故嬰名闇而不明,文聲馳而不滅。

實說,世俗諱之,亦有緣也。夫正月歲始,五月盛陽,子以〔此月〕生,精熾熱烈,厭勝父母,父母不堪,將受其患。

傳相放傚,莫謂不然。有空諱之言,無實凶之效,世俗惑之,誤非之甚也。

夫忌諱非一,必託之神怪,若設以死亡,然后世人信用畏避。忌諱之語,四方不同,略舉通語,令世觀覽。

若夫曲俗微 小之諱,眾多非一,咸勸人為善,使人重慎,無鬼神之害、凶醜之禍。

世諱作豆醬惡聞雷,一人不食,欲使人急作,不欲積家踰至春也。

〔世〕諱厲刀井上,恐刀墮井中也;或說以為「刑」之字,井與刀也,厲刀井上,井、刀相見,恐被刑也。

毋承屋檐而坐,恐瓦墮擊人首也。

毋反懸冠,為似死人服;或說惡其反而承塵溜也。

毋偃寢,為其象屍也。

毋以箸相受,為其不固也。

毋相代掃,為脩冢之人,冀人來代己也。

諸言「毋」者,教人重慎,勉人為善。《禮》曰:「毋(搏)〔摶〕飯,毋流歠。」禮義之禁,未必吉凶之言也。

Chapter XXXVI. Four Things to be Avoided (Sse-hui).

There are four things which, according to public opinion, must be avoided by all means. The first is to build an annex to a building on the west side, for such an annex is held to be inauspicious, and being so, is followed by a case of death. Owing to this apprehension, nobody in the world would dare to build facing the west. This prohibition dates from days of yore.

Whe have a record that [Duke Ai of Lu1 wished to build an annex to the west. The astrologer opposed this scheme as unpropitious. Duke Ai flushed up and got angry; his attendants remonstrated several times, but he would not hear and asked the prime minister Chih Sui saying, "I wish to build an annex on the west-side, and the astrologer declares it to be unpropitious. What do you mean?"

`There are three unpropitious things in the world,' replied Chih Sui, `but building an annex on the west side is not among them.'

The duke cheered up, and shortly afterwards again asked which were the three unpropitious things. The other said, `Not to act fairly and justly is the first unpropitious thing. To give way to one's unrestrained desires is the second, and not to listen to a proper remonstrance is the third.'

The duke became meditative and, having pondered for awhile, he frankly acknowledged his fault and changed his mind. The annex was not built], 2 for the astrologer and the prime minister both received the order to stop building.

The annex in the west caused useless trouble, it is true, but we know not whether it was auspicious or inauspicious. Should the astrologer and Chih Sui have been of opinion that an annex in the west was inauspicious indeed, then both would be on a par with the common people of the present day. 3 On all the four sides of a house there is earth; how is it that three sides are not looked upon as of ill omen, and only an annex in the west is said to be unpropitious? How could such an annex be injurious to the body of earth, or hurtful to the spirit of the house? In case an annex in the west be unpropitious, would a demolition there be a good augury? Or, if an annex in the west be inauspicious, would it be a lucky omen in the east? For if there be something inauspicious, there must also be something auspicious, as bad luck has good luck as its correlate.

A house has a form, and a spirit disposes of good and bad luck; a cultivation of virtue leads to happiness, and an infringement of the laws brings about misfortune. Now, if an annex in the west is believed to be unpropitious, where must it be built to be propitious? Moreover, who is it that takes exception at people extending their house to the west? Should earth resent it, what damage does it do to earth, if the west side of an eastern house be enlarged and, at the same time, the east side of a western building be diminished?

Provided that the spirit of the house dislike an annex to the west, a spirit resembles man, and every man would gladly see his residence enlarged; for why should he dislike it? Supposing that the spirit of the house dislikes the trouble caused by the alteration, then all annexes on the four sides ought to be ill-omened.

The experts in the various arts and professions, in explaining omens, specify the different cases. The house builders state that in erecting a house mischievous spirits may be met with, in removing one's residence care should be taken to avoid the spirits of the year and the months, in sacrificing, certain days may be encountered when bloodshed is to be shunned, and in burying one may fail against the odd and even days. In all these instances these prohibitions are given in view of ghosts and spirits, and evil influences. Those who do not avoid them, fall sick and die, but as for building an annex in the west, what harm is there, that it is held to be inauspicious, and how does the subsequent calamity manifest itself?

Properly speaking, this prohibition of something inauspicious is based on reason, and not to be observed on account of good or bad luck:---The west is the region of elders and the seat of the honoured. The honoured and the elders being in the west, the inferiors and youngsters are in the east. The superiors and elders are the masters, the inferiors and youngsters, their assistants. Masters are few, and assistants many. There can be no two superiors above, but there are a hundred inferiors below. When in the west an addition is made to the master, 4 whereas the assistants are not increased, there are two superiors, but not a hundred inferiors (for each). That is contrary to justice, and therefore called unpropitious. 5 Being unpropitious it should not be done. Yet though being contrary to justice, it is not of ill omen for the following reason:

A tomb is a place where a dead man is interred; a field one whence man gets his food and drink; and a house the place where man lives. In respect to auspiciousness these three places are the same for man. Now, an annex to a house in the west is considered inauspicious, whereas nobody pretends the same of an annex made in the west of a tomb or a field. A tomb, being the residence of a dead man, is somewhat neglected and treated with indifference, and in a field which is not inhabited by man, the distinction between superiors and inferiors is not drawn. In a house old and young live together, therefore great care is taken to carry out this idea, and the prohibition is insisted upon. The rule is diligently observed in houses, but great laxity prevails in regard to graves and fields.

The second thing to be avoided is that a convict having suffered corporeal punishment ascends a tumulus. People merely know that this should not be allowed, but do not understand the reason of this interdiction, and if you inquire of those insisting upon this prohibition, they ignore the meaning of this avoidance; nor do those complying with this advice trouble much about it. One imitates the other; this goes so far, that when the father and the mother of a culprit die, he does not bury the dead, and being near their tomb, does not venture to approach and inter them. He does not even condole, and looks upon the coffin as if it belonged to a stranger.

A good man, being convicted, after having suffered corporeal punishment is called a convict. 6 Such a one may ascend a tumulus. The two parents after their death are said to be deceased. What difference is there between a house and a tomb, or between living and deceased parents?

If convicts be reproved by their ascendants for having suffered punishment, then they ought not to enter their home, or see their parents either, and if, on the other hand, convicts be not allowed to have commerce with the dead, then, when their parents have expired in their hall, they should not cry by their coffins. If, in fine, convicts be not permitted to ascend a tumulus, then they should not be allowed to mount hills or mountains either.

Which reasons have those people to give who enforce this prohibition? As a matter of fact, there are two reasons why convicts do not ascend a tumulus; the injunction is based on these causes, and there can be no question of any avoidance of unlucky influences:

The convicts are aware that their ancestors have generated them complete, and that the descendants should also return their bodies complete. [Wherefore Tsêng Tse being ill called to him the disciples of his school, and said, "Uncover 7 my feet, uncover my hands ...... Now and hereafter, I know my escape, my young friends."] 8

Tsêng Tse was so considerate, that before his end he wanted to show that his body was intact, and he was glad that he had escaped all bodily injury. Confucius said, "The body, the hair, and the skin, we received them from our parents, and dare not impair them." 9

A dutiful son dreads falling into the clutches of the law: the cutting and branding of the body as well as the disfiguring and scathing of the hair and the skin, are the upshot of a lack of virtue, of unworthy dealings, and carelessness. A criminal is ashamed of having suffered the disgrace of a punishment, and most earnestly reproaches himself. It is for this reason that he does not ascend a tumulus.

According to the ancient rites, the sacrifices to ascendants were performed in temples, the modern custom is to offer them at the grave. Consequently, a convict does not ascend a tumulus out of shame lest he should cause displeasure to his ascendant. That is the first reason.

A tomb is the abode of ghosts and spirits. As regards the place of sacrifice and the sacrificial rites, it is of the utmost importance that there should be penance and absolute purity. Now, people that have suffered punishment are disgraced, and not fit to attend at an offering, or to worship their ascendants. Their modesty and reverence demand that they should retire and humiliate themselves, for their ancestors, remarking that their descendants have suffered punishment, would commiserate them, and feel unhappy, and most likely, at the sacrifice, not be able to enjoy the offering. This is the second reason why the former do not ascend a tumulus.

In times of old, T`ai Po noticed that Wang Chi had a holy son, Wên Wang, and he knew that T`ai Wang wished to raise him to the throne. Therefore he repaired to Wu, where he collected medicinal herbs, cut off his hair, and tattooed his body, to follow the customs of Wu. At the decease of T`ai Wang, T`ai Po returned, and Wang Chi intended to yield the supreme power to him. T`ai Po again declined, but Wang Chi would not hear of it. So he declined three times, saying, "I went to Wu and Yüeh, and, in accordance with their customs, cut off my hair, and tattooed my body. I am like a man who has been subjected to torture, and cannot be the chief of the ancestral temple and of the altars of the land and grain." Wang Chi admitted that it was impossible, and, much against his will, accepted his resignation. 10

A convict not ascending a burial mound is like T`ai Po declining the royal dignity, which means that he is unqualified to perform the sacrificial rites, but not, to conduct the funeral, when a coffin is to be buried.

At the burial of a descendant the ancestors are grieved, and the aspect of a convict fills them with sorrow. When such a person, worthy of pity, buries somebody whose death is a cause of grief to his ascendants, the latter, provided that they are conscious, would feel grieved at the death, and commiserate the disgrace of their descendant, wherefore then should he be abashed? Should they be unconscious, then the burial mound is nothing but a piece of uncultivated land, and there is still less any occasion for shame.

These convicts are said to stand abashed before their ascendants, because their body is mutilated by torture and not like that of other people. Anciently, by torture the body was in fact, racked, and did not remain intact, which may have rendered it unfit. But, at present, the penalties are merely symbolical, 11 the gravest consisting in shaving the head and in an iron collar. The lesser delinquents whose punishments are less than forced labour at building a wall, may wear coloured silk dresses and caps and girdles different to those worn by common people, why should they be unfit for a funeral? The public believes them all to be obnoxious, and carries its error to the length of not allowing such persons to condole at the death of a fellow-villager, or to ascend the tumulus of a stranger; a great mistake this.

The third thing to be shunned is a woman who, having born a child, is believed to bring ill-luck. Those who have some lucky undertaking in hand, go far away into mountains and forests, traversing streams and lakes, and have no intercourse with such a woman. They even avoid coming near her house, and only, after having passed a month in the huts on burial grounds and on the roads, they return. The unexpected sight of the woman appears to them very unlucky.

If we study the question carefully, on what is this dislike based? When a woman gives birth to a child, it comes into the world, filled with the original fluid. This fluid is the finest essence of Heaven and Earth, how could it be harmful and detestable? Man is an organism, and so is a child. What difference is there between the birth of a child and the production of all the other organisms? If human birth be held to be baleful, is the creation of the myriads of organisms baleful too?

The new-born issues with the placenta. If the placenta be deemed foreshadowing evil, the human placenta is like the husk 12 of fruits growing on trees; 13 wrapped round the infant's body, it comes out with it like the egg-shell of a young bird. What harm is there to justify people's aversion? Should it be due to its supposed inauspiciousness, then all organisms with husks and shells ought to be detestable.

There is such a plethora of organisms, that I am at a loss where to begin with my deductions: Human birth does not distinguish itself from that of the Six Domestic Animals. 14 They are all of them animated beings with blood, that breed and bring forth their young not otherwise than man. Yet the aversion applies to human birth only, and does not include that of animals. Is it perhaps in view of the bigness of the human body and of the quantity of its vital fluid and its blood? But the size of an ox or a horse is much greater than that of man.

If, with reference to distasteful objects, there is no equality, and only one singled out, irrespective of its similarity to all the others, the case becomes rather doubtful. Now, the Six Animals are hardly different from man, and they produce their young in the same way. That, (notwithstanding this similarity between the Six Animals and man), the latter is avoided, and not the former, proves the ignorance of the people.

Supposing they could make a distinction between the birth of a child and the breeding of the Six Animals, I would admit their avoidance, but in case they are unable to draw a line, I must say that this popular avoidance is unreasonable.

There is certainly nothing more loathsome for man than putrescence and fetor; putrid and fetid smells make one sick. The nose smelling stench, and the mouth eating something rotten, people feel their stomach turn, make a wry face and begin spitting and vomiting. Privies 15 may be said to be fetid, and dried fish to be putrid meat, yet there are persons that put up with privies even, and do not shudder at them, 16 and for many dried fish are a relish from which they do not recoil. That which the mind does not turn to, is thought of as disgusting, and its good or bad qualities are left out of account.

Now, as for detestable things, (such as black varnish bespattering one's body), 17 after the eyes have seen, and the nose has smelled them, and they have passed, everything is over. Why still abhor them, when they have vanished, and are no more to be seen?

If going out on the road, we behold a man carrying a pig on his shoulders, or remark some foul stuff in a ditch, we do not take this for evil omens, because the filth is on somebody else's body, and not on our own. Now, a woman bearing a child, carries it with her, why then must people be so scrupulous as to shun her?

North of the Yangtse, they do not leave the house when a child is born, knowing that there is no harm in it, but when a bitch whelps, they place her outside the house, which is likewise an absurdity. North of the Yangtse, they are afraid of a dog, but not of a human being, south of the Yangtse, they recoil from a human being, but not from a dog. In either case the superstitious attempts to avert evil are not the same, but what difference is there between a human being and a dog, or a place within or without the house? What the one detests, the other does not, and what people of this side stagger at, the other side does not fear. After all, there is no principle in all these popular precautions.

As regards the darkening of the moon, a month is counted from each conjunction of the sun and the moon in a solar mansion. When, on the eighth day of a month, the moon is cut in two halves, it is called a "crescent," 18 when, on the fifteenth, sun and moon face each other, it is called the "facing moon," 19 and on the thirtieth, when sun and moon are conjunct in a mansion, it is called the "dark moon." 20 The dark moon, the crescent, and the facing moon are in reality the same. On the last day of the mouth, the moonlight is no other than on the first day of the following month. Why is this light called auspicious after the commencement of the next month? If it be really ill-boding it cannot be said to be auspicious in the next month, and if it really be so it would make no difference that the new month had not yet begun.

As a matter of fact, the injunction to keep aloof from newborn infants and puppies, is intended as an incentive to self-purification, preventing people from polluting themselves with filth and sordid things. When they are clean in their bodies, their minds are pure, and their minds being pure, their proceedings are undefiled. These irreproachable dealings are the basis of honesty and unselfishness.

The fourth thing to be shunned is the bringing up of children born in the first or the fifth months, because such children are supposed to kill their father and mother, and therefore on no account can be reared. Father and mother having perhaps died through some calamity, this assertion has found credence and is taken for certain. Now, wherefore should children of the first or the fifth months kill their father and mother?

The human embryo, filled with the fluid, remains in the womb, where it develops ten months, when it is born. All are imbued with the same original fluid; what difference is there between the first and the second months, and what diversity between the fifth and the sixth, that an ill omen might be found in them?

This opinion has long spread in the world, and all those who cling to destiny dare not act against it. If men of vast erudition and great talents carefully go into the question, and minutely examine the difference between good and bad omens, they must arrive at a clear understanding.

Of old, [a humble concubine of T`ien Ying, minister of Ch`i, had a son, whom she named Wên. As Wên had been born in the fifth moon, T`ien Ying told his mother not to bring him up, but the mother clandestinely reared him. When he had grown up, the mother took her son Wên together with his brothers, and introduced him to his father.

T`ien Ying, very angry, said to her, "I ordered you to do away with this son, how did you dare to keep him alive?" Wên bowed his head, and interfering in the discussion, said, `What is the reason that Your Honour does not want to rear a fifth month child?'

"Because," replied T`ien Ying, "a fifth month child grows as high as a door, and will do harm to his parents."

Wên rejoined, `Does the fate which man receives at his birth depend on Heaven, or does it depend on a door?'

T`ien Ying made no reply. `No doubt,' said Wên, `it depends on Heaven. Then, why are you dissatisfied? Should fate be received from a door, and the child become as high as a door, who could attain to that?'

T`ien Ying acquiesced and said, "Leave off, my son."] [Subsequently, he entrusted him with the superintendence of his household and the reception of guests. Their numbers increased daily, and T`ien Wên's name became known to all the princes.] 21 He grew higher than a door, but T`ien Ying did not die.

According to the reasons put forward by T`ien Wên and corroborated by the fact that his father did not die, the common dread is baseless. T`ien Ying was an ordinary father, but T`ien Wên an exceptional son, the former trusted in the general prejudice, and did not inquire into its reasons, whereas the latter confided in fate, and did not admit the avoidance. As their parts were different, ordinary and exceptional, so were their actions. T`ienYing's name is obscure and unknown, while his son's fame spread far and wide, and never faded.

Still this common avoidance has also its reason: The first month is the beginning of the year, and in the fifth the Yang reaches its acme. A child being born in one of these months, its original nature is fiery and impetuous and weighs heavily on its parents. Not being strong enough to offer resistance, they must come to grief. 22

This idea has gained ground, and no one contradicts it. It is an unfounded assertion, and there is no proof of a real misfortune. The world suffers itself to be imposed upon and to fall into the greatest errors. Things to be avoided are manifold, but always some prodigy is put forth, and if really somebody should happen to die, then the public is convinced of the truth of the assertion, and abides by it.

As to what is to be dreaded and shunned, different views prevail everywhere. I shall give some instances of universal customs, which I trust will be considered. There are innumerous minor rules and observances, all meant to induce to virtue and to exhort to particular carefulness. 23 Nothing is to be feared from ghosts and spirits, and no calamities are due to mischievous influences:

In making bean-sauce people dislike very much to hear thunder. 24 One person did not eat the sauce in order to induce people to hasten its preparation, and not to allow the stuff to lie about in their premises up to spring time. 25

One avoids grinding a knife over a well---lest it fall into the well, or, as some say, because the character hsing (capital punishment) is composed of ching (a well) and tao (a knife) . Grinding a knife over a well, the knife and the well face each other, and one apprehends suffering capital punishment (hsing ). 26

One must not sit under the eaves of a house---a tile might fall down and hit one on the head.

One must not hang up a cap upside down---for it would resemble the garments of a dead man, or, as some say, it should not be turned, lest it be filled with dust.

One must not lie down flat---for one would be like a corpse. 27

One must not receive chopsticks from anybody---because they are not solid. 28

One must not expect others to sweep the ground for one--- for a man building a grave might request one to sweep for him. 29

All these "One must not" are to induce people to exert particular cautiousness, and to exhort them to do good. The Liki says, ["One must not roll the rice into a ball, and one must not slobber."] 30 These are prohibitions regarding propriety and righteousness, and not spoken in reference to good or bad fortune.

Notes

1. 494-468 B.C.

2. Quoted from Huai Nan Tse XVIII, 18v.

3. Common people believe in these superstitions.

4. I. e., when a new building is erected in the west for the use of a second master. The other possibility that the new building is destined for the one master to enlarge his dwelling, is not taken into acconnt.

5. The Fêng-su t`ung, quoted in the Pei-wên-yün-fu, gives a similar reason:--- The west is the seat of the superiors, and a new building in this direction would be hurtful to them.

6. Even a good man may innocently suffer punishment and thus become a convict.

7. . Our text of the Analects reads:---.

8. Analects VIII, 3.

9. See Liki, Chi-yi (Legge, Sacred Books Vol. XXVIII, p. 229).

10. Cf. Vol. I, p. 120 and 131, where Wang Chi is called "king Chi" or Chi Li.

11. Vid. p. 81.

12. . This meaning is not found in the dictionaries.

13. . Ed. A and B have for . might be equivalent to "fresh fruit."

14. The horse, the ox, the goat, the pig, the dog, and the cock.

15. , a term strangely corresponding to the German word "toilet" = privy.

16. Most Chinese privies are so horrid, that even Chinese try to avoid them.

17. Chinese varnish is so poisonous, that its smell alone suffices to produce a cutaneous eruption.

18. .

19. .

20. .

21. Quotation from the Shi-chi chap. 75, p. 2r. the biography of T`ien Wên. Cf. also Vol. I, p. 161, where, in line 10, "He replied" should be written for "She replied," and, in line 13, "He rejoined" for "She rejoined."

22. This reason may be in accordance with Wang Ch`ung's system, to us it appears inane.

23. This is Wang Ch`ungs opinion. The belief of his countrymen is that many actions, apart from their qualities, entail misfortune, and solely for this reason are to be shunned.

24. Perhaps the electricity caused the sauce to spoil, as milk becomes sour when the air is charged with electricity. Wang Ch`ung does not know this.

25. The first thunder-storms are in spring. This single case, Wang Ch`ung seems to intimate, was the reason that, subsequently, people always liked to have their bean-sauce ready before the first peal of thunder was heard viz. before the beginning of spring.

26. Similar "avoidances" have come down to our own rational times. E. g. one must not thank any one for a knife or a pair of scissors, otherwise they would cut the friendship. A young lady avoids cutting a fresh pat of butter, otherwise she is sure not to marry during the year.

27. This rule goes back to Confucius, who in bed, did not lie like a corpse. Analects X, 16.

28. This may be an allusion to the frailty of the body or of friendship.

29. A man making such a request would be like one having somebody to bury. The very sensible reasons given for these various customs are Wang Ch`ung's.

30. Liki, Ch`ü-li p. 18r. (Legge, Sacred Books Vol. XXVII, p. 80).

<Previous Section>
<Next Section>
IATHPublished by The Institute for Advanced Technology in the Humanities, © Copyright 2003 by Anne Kinney and the University of Virginia