Sui and Tang · Official

Fang Renyu 房仁裕

Attested AD 662

Passages
1
Chapters
1
Histories
1

Overview

The translated histories identify Fang Renyu as an official. This record brings together 1 passage from 1 chapter across 1 history, with names, dates, relationships, offices, and events preserved as source-backed claims.

Names

TypeEnglishChinesePinyin
Personal Fang Renyu 房仁裕 Fang Renyu
Title Chief Minister of the Guard 司衛正卿
Personal name Fang Renyu 房仁裕 Fang Renyu

Identity

Historicity
Historical
Identification
Named
Sex
Male

Roles

  • Official

Life and dates

Attested activity

  • Source Date: Text: 龍朔二年八月 · Western Year: AD 662
    Explicit event contextual date · jiutangshu:027:s0019

Career and standing

Places and affiliations

Events and relationships

  • Kind: deliberation · Role: opinion-leader · Action: argued Siye not leave office
    Explicit · jiutangshu:027:s0019

References in the histories

Open any source group to read the Chinese and English passage in context.

Old Book of Tang, Chapter 27Volume 23 Treatises 3: Rites 3 · 1 passage
Open chapter
既而有敕：「雖云嫡母，終是繼母，據禮緣情，須有定制。付所司議定奏聞。」司禮太常伯隴西郡王博乂等奏稱：緬尋《喪服》，母名斯定，嫡、繼、慈、養，皆在其中。惟出母制，特言出妻之子，明非生己，則皆無服。是以令云母嫁，又云出妻之子。出言其子，以著所生，嫁即言母，通包養、嫡，俱當解任，併合心喪。其不解者，惟有繼母之嫁。繼母為名，正據前妻之子；嫡於諸孽，禮無繼母之文。甲令今既見行，嗣業理申心制。然奉敕議定，方垂永則，令有不安，亦須釐正。竊以嫡、繼、慈、養，皆非所生，並同行路。嫁雖比出稍輕，於父終為義絕。繼母之嫁，既殊親母，慈、嫡義絕，豈合心喪？望請凡非所生，父卒而嫁，為父後者無服，非承重者杖期，並不心喪，一同繼母。有符情禮，無玷舊章。又心喪之制，惟施服屈，杖期之服，不應解官。而令文三年齊斬，亦入心喪之例；杖期解官，又有妻喪之舛。又依禮，庶子為其母緦麻三月。既是所生母服，准例亦合解官。令文漏而不言，於事終須修附。既與嫡母等嫁同一令條，總議請改，理為允愜者。依集文武官九品已上議。得司衛正卿房仁裕等七百三十六人議，請一依司禮狀，嗣業不解官。得右金吾衛將軍薛孤吳仁等二十六人議，請解嗣業官，不同司禮狀者。母非所生，出嫁義絕，仍令解職，有紊緣情。杖期解官，不甄妻服，三年齊斬，謬曰心喪。庶子為母緦麻，漏其中制。此並令文疏舛，理難因襲。依房仁裕等議，總加修附，垂之不朽。其禮及律疏有相關涉者，亦請准此改正。嗣業既非嫡母改醮，不合解官。 An edict followed: "Although she is called a legitimate mother, in the end she is a stepmother. According to ritual and following feeling, there must be a fixed rule. Send this to the responsible office to deliberate and determine, then memorialize." Bo Yi, Director of Ceremonies and Chamberlain for Ceremonials, Prince of Longxi Commandery, and others memorialized: Searching deeply in the Mourning Dress, the name mother is fixed, and legitimate, step-, compassionate, and adoptive mothers are all included within it. Only in the rule for a divorced mother does it specifically say "the son of a divorced wife," making clear that if she did not give birth to him, there is no mourning for all such cases. Therefore the code says "when a mother remarries," and also says "the son of a divorced wife." When it says "divorced," it mentions her son to show the one she bore; when it says "remarries," it says mother and broadly includes adoptive and legitimate mothers. All should leave office and observe inner mourning. The only one who does not leave office is a stepmother who remarries. The name stepmother properly refers to the son of a former wife; for the legitimate wife in relation to concubine-born sons, ritual has no text calling her stepmother. Since the statute is now in force, Siye may in principle extend inner mourning. Yet since an edict orders determination so that it may become a permanent rule, if the statute has something unsettled, it must also be corrected. Privately we think that legitimate, step-, compassionate, and adoptive mothers are all not the birth mother and are all the same as people on the road. Though remarriage is slightly lighter than divorce, in relation to the father it is still a severing of obligation. Since remarriage of a stepmother differs from the birth mother, and the obligation to a compassionate or legitimate mother is severed, how should inner mourning apply? We request that whenever the woman is not the birth mother and, after the father dies, she remarries, the one who succeeds as heir to the father should have no mourning for her, while one who does not bear the main succession should observe staff-year mourning, and none should observe inner mourning, all being the same as with a stepmother. This accords with feeling and ritual and does not blemish the old statutes. Also, the rule of inner mourning applies only when mourning dress is reduced; staff-year mourning should not require leaving office. Yet the code text puts three-year mourning with trimmed and unhemmed garments also under inner mourning; staff-year mourning requiring leaving office also has the error of a wife's mourning. Again according to ritual, a concubine-born son mourns his mother with fine hemp for three months. Since this is mourning for the birth mother, by precedent he should also leave office. The code omits this and does not say it, but in practice it must ultimately be amended. Since it is in the same statute as remarriage of a legitimate mother, we request that all these points be revised together, which in principle is fitting. The matter was referred to assembled civil and military officials of the ninth rank and above for deliberation. The opinion of Fang Renyu, Chief Minister of the Guard, and 736 others was obtained, requesting full adherence to the Director of Ceremonies' statement and that Siye not leave office. The opinion of Xuegu Wuren, General of the Right Gold Bird Guard, and twenty-six others was obtained, requesting that Siye leave office, differing from the Director of Ceremonies' statement. Since a mother who is not the birth mother severs obligation by remarrying, still ordering departure from office disrupts following feeling. Requiring departure from office for staff-year mourning, without distinguishing mourning for a wife; falsely calling three-year trimmed and unhemmed mourning inner mourning; omitting the middle rule for a concubine-born son mourning his mother in fine hemp: these are all omissions and errors in the code text and are hard in principle to carry forward. Follow the deliberation of Fang Renyu and the others, revise and add all of them, and transmit this imperishably. Where the ritual and legal commentary are related to these matters, we also request that they be corrected according to this. Since Siye's case is not remarriage of a legitimate mother, he should not leave office.