Volume 90: Retired Officals - Sui Kua, Feng Liang, Li Mi, Zheng Xiu

眭夸馮亮李謐鄭脩

Sui Kua, Feng Liang, Li Mi, and Zheng Xiu

蓋兼濟獨善，顯晦之殊，其事不同，由來久矣。昔夷齊獲全於周武，華矞不容於太公，何哉？求其心者，許以激貪之用；督其迹者，以為束教之風。而肥遁不反，代有人矣。夷情得喪，忘懷累有。比夫邁德弘道，匡俗庇民，可得而小，不可得而忽也。自叔世澆浮，淳風殆盡，錐刀之末，競入成羣，而能冥心物表，介然離俗，望古獨適，求友千齡，亦異人矣。何必御霞乘雲而追日月，窮極天地，始為超遠哉。今錄眭夸等為逸士傳。

The paths of serving the common good and cultivating oneself in solitude, of public renown and private withdrawal—these have never been the same, and the difference is ancient. Long ago Boyi and Shuqi were spared by King Wu of Zhou, yet Hua Yu found no place with Duke Tai of Qi—why was this? Those who probe their motives credit them with the power to rouse the grasping from corruption; Those who judge them by their deeds take them as a model for restraining custom. Yet men who withdraw far into reclusion and never return back—each generation has produced them. Indifferent to worldly passion, heedless of gain and loss—examples are many. Measured against those who advance virtue, broaden the Way, reform society, and shelter the people, such men may seem small in scale, yet they cannot be dismissed lightly. From the fallen age onward, honest manners have all but vanished; men scramble over the smallest profit. Yet those who can fix their minds beyond the world of things, stand aloof from vulgar life, take antiquity alone as their measure, and seek kindred spirits across a thousand years are rare beings indeed. Why must one ride the clouds and pursue the sun and moon, traversing heaven and earth to the limit, before being called truly remote from the world? Here Sui Kua and the others are entered in a Biography of Reclusive Scholars.

眭夸，一名昶，趙郡高邑人也。祖邁，晉東海王越軍謀掾，後沒石勒為徐州刺史。父邃，字懷道，慕容寶中書令。夸少有大度，不拘小節，耽志書傳，未曾以世務經心。好飲酒，浩然物表。年二十遭父喪，鬚鬢致白，每一悲哭，聞者為之流涕。高尚不仕，寄情丘壑。同郡李順願與之交，夸拒而不許。邦國少長莫不憚之。

Sui Kua, also called Chang, came from Gaoyi in Zhao commandery. His grandfather Mai had been a military adviser to Jin's Prince of Donghai, Yue; after capture by Shi Le he became Inspector of Xuzhou. His father Sui, styled Huaidao, served Murong Bao as Secretariat Director. Kua was broad-minded from youth, careless of small proprieties, absorbed in books and histories, and never gave worldly business a thought. He loved wine and lived with an unworldly ease beyond the common round. At twenty he lost his father; his beard and hair turned white, and each time he mourned aloud those who heard him wept. Lofty in spirit, he refused office and gave his heart to mountain and stream. Li Shun of his commandery wished to associate with him; Kua declined. Young and old in the realm alike stood in awe of him.

少與崔浩為莫逆之交。浩為司徒，奏徵為其中郎，辭疾不赴。州郡逼遣，不得已，入京都。與浩相見，延留數日，惟飲酒談敍平生，不及世利。浩每欲論屈之，竟不能發言。其見敬憚如此。浩後遂投詔書於夸懷，亦不開口。夸曰：「桃簡，卿已為司徒，何足以此勞國士也。吾便於此將別。」桃簡，浩小名也。浩慮夸即還。時乘一騾，更無兼騎，浩乃以夸騾內之廐中，冀相維縶。夸遂託鄉人輸租者，謬為御車，乃得出關。浩知而歎曰：「眭夸獨行士，本不應以小職辱之。又使其人仗策復路，吾當何辭以謝也。」時朝法甚峻，夸既私還，將有私歸之咎。浩仍相左右，始得無坐。經年，送夸本騾，兼遺以所乘馬，為書謝之。夸更不受其騾馬，亦不復書。及浩誅，為之素服，受鄉人弔唁，經一時乃止。歎曰：「崔公既死，誰能更容眭夸！」遂作朋友篇，辭義為時人所稱。

In his youth he and Cui Hao were inseparable friends. When Hao became Minister of Works he recommended Kua as Palace Gentleman; Kua pleaded illness and stayed away. Provincial and commandery authorities pressed him until, with no choice left, he entered the capital. On meeting Hao he lingered several days, drinking and recalling their past alone, never speaking of worldly gain. Hao meant each time to argue him into compliance, yet could never bring himself to begin. Such was the deference he inspired. Hao then thrust the imperial edict into Kua's robe; Kua still would not speak. Kua said, "Taojian, you are already Minister of Works—what need is there to weary a man of the realm with such a thing? I shall bid farewell here." Taojian was Hao's childhood name. Hao feared Kua would return home at once. Kua had come on a single mule with no second mount; Hao stabled the mule in his own stable, hoping to hold him back. Kua then joined a townsman delivering rent grain, passed himself off as the driver, and so slipped through the pass. Learning this, Hao sighed: "Sui Kua is a man who walks alone; he should never have been pressed with a petty office. And I have sent him walking home with a staff—what apology can I possibly make?" Court law was severe; Kua's unauthorized return would have brought punishment for leaving without leave. Hao continued to shield him until he escaped punishment. A year later he returned Kua's mule, sent the horse he had ridden, and wrote to apologize. Kua again refused mule and horse and sent no letter in return. When Hao was put to death, Kua wore plain mourning, received condolences from his neighbors, and only after a time laid it aside. He sighed, "Lord Cui is dead—who will shelter Sui Kua now?" He then wrote an essay On Friendship, praised in his day for its force.

婦父鉅鹿魏攀，當時名達之士。未嘗備壻之禮，情同朋好。或人謂夸曰：「吾聞有大才者必居貴仕，子何獨在桑榆乎？」遂著知命論以釋之。年七十五卒。葬日，赴會者如市。無子。

His father-in-law Wei Pan of Julu was a celebrated man of the time. He never observed son-in-law proprieties; they were friends in spirit. Someone said to Kua, "Men of great talent, I am told, must hold high office—why do you alone linger in life's evening?" He wrote an essay On Accepting Fate to answer them. He died at seventy-five. On the day of his burial mourners thronged like a market. He left no sons.

馮亮，字靈通，南陽人，蕭衍平北將軍蔡道恭之甥也。少博覽諸書，又篤好佛理。隨道恭至義陽，會中山王英平義陽而獲焉。英素聞其名，以禮待接。亮性清淨，至洛，隱居崧高，感英之德，以時展勤。及英亡，亮奔赴，盡其哀慟。

Feng Liang, styled Lingtong, came from Nanyang; he was nephew to Xiao Yan's General Who Pacifies the North, Cai Daogong. As a youth he read widely and was deeply devoted to Buddhist teaching. He followed Daogong to Yiyang; when Prince of Zhongshan Ying took the city, Liang was captured. Ying had long known his reputation and treated him with courtesy. Liang was pure in temperament; reaching Luoyang he withdrew to Mount Song, grateful for Ying's kindness, and visited him from time to time. When Ying died, Liang rushed to the mourning and grieved to the utmost.

世宗嘗召以為羽林監，領中書舍人，將令侍講十地諸經，固辭不拜。又欲使衣幘入見，亮苦求以幅巾就朝，遂不強逼。還山數年，與僧徒禮誦為業，蔬食飲水，有終焉之志。會逆人王敞事發，連山中沙門，而亮被執赴尚書省，十餘日，詔特免雪。亮不敢還山，遂寓居景明寺。敕給衣食及其從者數人。後思其舊居，復還山室。亮既雅愛山水，又兼巧思，結架巖林，甚得栖游之適，頗以此聞。世宗給其工力，[2]令與沙門統僧暹、河南尹甄琛等，周視崧高形勝之處，遂造閑居佛寺。林泉既奇，營製又美，曲盡山居之妙。亮時出京師。延昌二年冬，因遇篤疾，世宗敕以馬輿送令還山，居崧高道場寺。數日而卒。詔贈帛二百匹，以供凶事。遺誡兄子綜，斂以衣㡊，左手持板，右手執孝經一卷，置尸盤石上，去人數里外。積十餘日，乃焚於山。以灰燼處，起佛塔經藏。

Emperor Shizong summoned him as Captain of the Feathered Forest with concurrent duty as Palace Scribe, intending to have him expound the Ten Grounds sutras; he firmly refused the appointment. The court wished him to appear in formal cap; Liang begged to attend in a plain headcloth, and they did not press him. Back in the hills for years he chanted sutras with monks, lived on vegetables and water, and meant to end his days there. When the rebel Wang Chang's plot surfaced, mountain monks were swept up; Liang was seized and held at the Ministry of State, then specially pardoned after ten-odd days. He dared not return to the hills and lodged at Jingming Temple. An edict provided food, clothing, and several attendants. Later, longing for his old retreat, he went back to his mountain cell. Liang loved landscape and had a gift for design; his cliff and forest structures suited dwelling and wandering so well that fame spread. The emperor gave him workmen and ordered him, with the Buddhist overseer Sengxian, Henan Intendant Zhen Chen, and others, to tour Mount Song's finest sites and build a reclusive temple. Wood and spring were wondrous, the construction exquisite—mountain life at its finest. From time to time Liang came down to the capital. In winter of Yanchang year 2, gravely ill, he was sent by imperial palanquin to Mount Song's Daochang Temple. He died within days. An edict granted two hundred bolts of silk for the funeral. He instructed his nephew Zong: enshroud him in hemp, left hand on a tablet, right hand holding one roll of the Classic of Filial Piety; lay the body on a stone slab miles from any dwelling. After ten-odd days they burned him on the mountain. At the ashes they raised a stupa and sutra repository.

初，亮以盛冬喪，時連日驟雪，窮山荒澗，鳥獸飢窘，僵尸山野，無所防護。時壽春道人惠需，每旦往看其屍，拂去塵霰。禽蟲之迹，交橫左右，而初無侵毀，衣服如本，惟風吹㡊巾。又以亮識舊南方法師信大栗十枚，言期之將來十地果報，開亮手以置把中。經宿，乃為蟲鳥盜食，皮殼在地，而亦不傷肌體。焚燎之日，有素霧蓊鬱，迴繞其傍，自地屬天，彌朝不絕。山中道俗營助者百餘人，莫不異焉。

Liang died in deep winter amid days of driving snow; in desolate hills birds and beasts starved, and his corpse lay unguarded in the wild. The Shouchun monk Huixu came each dawn to brush dust and hail from the body. Bird and insect tracks crossed the body, yet nothing harmed it; the clothes were untouched save that wind stirred the hemp cloth. He placed ten large chestnuts from the southern monk Xin, an old acquaintance of Liang's, saying they foretold Ten Grounds reward, and laid them in Liang's open hand. Overnight birds and insects ate the chestnuts; shells littered the ground, yet Liang's flesh was unharmed. On the cremation day pale mist rose thick about him from earth to sky and lingered all morning. The hundred-odd monks and lay helpers were all astonished.

李謐，字永和，趙郡人，[3]相州刺史安世之子。少好學，博通諸經，周覽百氏。初師事小學博士孔璠。數年後，璠還就謐請業。同門生為之語曰：「青成藍，藍謝青，師何常，在明經。」謐以公子徵拜著作佐郎，辭以授弟郁，詔許之。州再舉秀才，公府二辟，並不就。惟以琴書為業，有絕世之心。覽考工記、大戴禮盛德篇，以明堂之制不同，遂著明堂制度論曰：

Li Mi, styled Yonghe, came from Zhao commandery; he was son of Anshi, Inspector of Xiang province. From youth he loved learning, mastered the classics, and ranged through the hundred schools. At first he studied under the Erudite of Elementary Learning, Kong Fan. Years later Fan himself came to Mi to seek instruction. His fellows said, "Green outdoes blue, then blue surpasses green—what fixity has the teacher when mastery lies in the enlightened classic?" Summoned as Assistant Editor on account of his birth rank, Mi declined and gave the post to his younger brother Yu; the throne assented. Twice nominated as Outstanding Talent by his province, twice summoned by the government—he refused both. He lived only for zither and books and meant to withdraw from the world. Reading the Records of the Craftsman and the "Accomplished Virtue" chapter of Elder Dai's Rites, and finding the Mingtang regulations at odds, he wrote an essay On the Mingtang System, which says:

余謂論事辨物，當取正於經典之真文；援證定疑，必有驗於周孔之遺訓。然後可以稱準的矣。今禮文殘缺，聖言靡存，明堂之制，誰使正之。是以後人紛糾，競興異論，五九之說，各信其習。是非無準，得失相半。故歷代紛紜，靡所取正。乃使裴頠云：「今羣儒紛糾，互相掎摭，就令其象可得而圖，其所以居用之禮莫能通也，為設虛器耳。況漢氏所作，四維之个，復不能令各處其辰。愚以為尊祖配天，其儀明著；廟宇之制，理據未分。直可為殿屋以崇嚴父之祀，其餘雜碎一皆除之。」斯豈不以羣儒舛互，並乖其實，據義求衷，莫適可從哉？但恨典文殘滅，求之靡據而已矣。乃復遂去室牖諸制。施之於教，未知其所隆政；求之於情，未可喻其所以必須。惜哉言乎！仲尼有言曰：「賜也，爾愛其羊，我愛其禮。」余以為隆政必須其禮，豈彼一羊哉！推此而論，則聖人之於禮，殷勤而重之，裴頠之於禮，任意而忽之。是則頠賢於仲尼矣。以斯觀之，裴氏之子以不達而失禮之旨也。余竊不自量，頗有鄙意，據理尋義，以求其真，貴合雅衷，不苟偏信。乃藉之以禮傳，考之以訓注，博採先賢之言，廣搜通儒之說，量其當否，參其同異，棄其所短，收其所長，推義察圖，以折厥衷。豈敢必善，聊亦合其言志矣。

I hold that in discussing affairs and distinguishing things one must take one's standard from the authentic text of the classics; to settle doubt by evidence one must find confirmation in what Zhou and Confucius handed down. Only then can one claim a true standard. Today the ritual texts are broken, the sage's words nearly gone—who can correct the Mingtang regulations? Hence later scholars tangle in dispute, each trusting habit, the theories of five chambers and nine chambers alike clinging to custom. There is no standard for right and wrong; gain and loss divide evenly. Through the ages confusion has ruled, with nothing to adopt as correct. This led Pei Wei to say, "Confucians now tangle in dispute, each pulling the other down; even if their forms could be drawn, the rites of use cannot be made coherent—it is empty vessels. What the Han dynasty built, with its four corner posts, could not even place each in its proper season. Honoring the ancestor and matching Heaven—these rites are clear; temple and hall regulations—their principles remain unsettled. Build only a hall to dignify the father's sacrifice; cut away every other miscellaneous detail." Is it not because the Confucians contradict one another, all missing the truth, so that when one seeks the mean by principle, nothing can be adopted? One can only regret that the canonical texts are ruined and that no firm evidence remains. He then cast aside the regulations for chambers, doors, and windows as well. Applied to teaching, one cannot tell what government it would dignify; weighed by human feeling, one cannot explain why it must be required. What a pity, such words! Confucius said, "Ci, you care for the sheep; I care for the ritual." I hold that exalting government requires ritual--surely it is not a matter of one sheep alone! By this reasoning the sage honored ritual with earnest care, while Pei Wei treated ritual arbitrarily and lightly. By that logic Pei would surpass Zhongni. Seen this way, Pei's follower missed the point of ritual through incomprehension. I do not presume on my own measure, yet I have a view: I seek truth by principle, value refined intent, and will not cling to partial belief. I rely on the ritual tradition, test it against commentaries, gather the words of former worthies and search the theories of accomplished scholars, weigh right and wrong, compare agreements and differences, discard the weak, keep the strong, and settle the mean by reasoning and diagram. I dare not claim perfection, yet it at least matches what I mean to say.

凡論明堂之制者雖眾，然校其大略，則二途而已。言五室者，則據周禮考工之記以為本，是康成之徒所執；言九室者，則案大戴盛德之篇以為源，是伯喈之倫所持。此之二書，雖非聖言，然是先賢之中博見洽通者也。但各記所聞，未能全正，可謂既盡美矣，未盡善也。而先儒不能考其當否，便各是所習，卒相非毀，豈達士之確論哉？小戴氏傳禮事四十九篇，號曰禮記，雖未能全當，然多得其衷，方之前賢，亦無愧矣。而月令、玉藻、明堂三篇，頗有明堂之義，余故採掇二家，參之月令，以為明堂五室，古今通則。其室居中者謂之太室，[4]太室之東者謂之青陽，當太室之南者謂之明堂，當太室之西者謂之總章，當太室之北者謂之玄堂；四面之室，各有夾房，謂之左右个，三十六戶七十二牖矣。室个之形，今之殿前，是其遺像耳。个者，即寢之房也。但明堂與寢，施用既殊，故房、个之名亦隨事而遷耳。今粗書其像，以見鄙意，案圖察義，略可驗矣。故檢之五室，則義明於考工；校之戶牖，則數協於盛德；考之施用，則事著於月令；求之閏也，合周禮與玉藻。既同夏殷，又符周秦，雖乖眾儒，儻或在斯矣。

Many have discussed the Mingtang regulations, yet in broad outline there are only two schools. The five-chamber school takes the Zhou Rites "Artificers" record as its foundation—the party of Zheng Xuan; the nine-chamber school takes Elder Dai's "Accomplished Virtue" chapter as its source—the party of Cai Yong. Neither book is the sage's own words, yet both belong to the most learned and penetrating of the former worthies. Each recorded what he heard and could not wholly set it right—they reached beauty, perhaps, but not full goodness. Earlier Confucians never tested their right and wrong; each clung to his own training and ended in mutual attack—this is hardly the sure judgment of a true scholar. Younger Dai transmitted forty-nine ritual chapters called the Record of Rites; though not wholly correct, he mostly hit the mark and need not blush before earlier worthies. "Monthly Ordinances," "Jade Regalia," and "Mingtang" contain much Mingtang doctrine; I gather the two schools, compare them with the Monthly Ordinances, and take five chambers as the rule for all ages. The central chamber is the Grand Chamber; [4] east of it is Green Yang, south Bright Hall, west Total Splendor, north Dark Hall; each side chamber has flanking rooms called left and right ge—thirty-six doors and seventy-two windows in all. The form of chamber and ge survives in the forecourt of today's halls. A ge is simply a side room of the sleeping hall. Mingtang and sleeping hall differ in function, so the names for rooms and ge shift with the occasion. Here I sketch its form to show my view; inspect the diagram and the meaning can be tested in outline. Check the five chambers and the meaning is clear in the "Artificers"; compare doors and windows and the numbers agree with "Accomplished Virtue"; examine use and the affairs appear in the Monthly Ordinances; seek the intercalary month and it agrees with the Zhou Rites and "Jade Regalia." It matches Xia and Yin and Zhou and Qin alike; though it offends many Confucians, perhaps truth lies here.

考工記曰：「周人明堂，度以九尺之筵，東西九筵，南北七筵，堂崇一筵。五室，凡室二筵。室中度以几，堂上度以筵。」余謂記得之於五室，而謬於堂之修廣。何者？當以理推之，令愜古今之情也。夫明堂者，蓋所以告月朔、布時令、宗文王、祀五帝者也。然營構之範，自當因宜創制耳。故五室者合於五帝各居一室之義。且四時之祀，皆據其方之正。又聽朔布令，咸得其月之辰。可謂施政及祀，[5]二三俱允，求之古義，竊為當矣。

The "Artificers" says, "The Zhou Mingtang is measured by the nine-foot mat: nine mats east and west, seven north and south, the hall one mat high. Five chambers—each chamber two mats. Within chambers measure by the bench; on the hall measure by the mat." I hold the record is right on five chambers but wrong on the hall's length and breadth. Why? One must reason it out to satisfy the sense of past and present. The Mingtang announces the new moon, promulgates seasons, honors King Wen, and sacrifices to the Five Emperors. Yet the model for building should be shaped to fit the need. Five chambers fit the idea that each of the Five Emperors has his own chamber. Seasonal sacrifices each take their proper direction. Hearing the new moon and issuing orders each obtain the proper month and day. Government and sacrifice can both be served; [5] on both counts it holds—by ancient meaning, I believe it right.

鄭康成漢末之通儒，後學所宗正，釋五室之位，謂土居中，木火金水各居四維。然四維之室既乖其正，施令聽朔各失厥衷。左右之个，棄而不顧，乃反文之以美說，飾之以巧辭，言水木用事交於東北，木火用事交於東南，火土用事交於西南，金水用事交於西北。既依五行，當從其方，用事之交，[6]出何經典？可謂攻於異端，言非而博，疑誤後學，非所望於先儒也！禮記玉藻曰，天子「聽朔於南門之外，閏月則闔門左扉，立於其中」。鄭玄注曰：「天子之廟及路寢，皆如明堂制。明堂在國之陽，每月就其時之堂而聽朔焉。卒事，反宿路寢亦如之。閏月非常月，聽其朔於明堂門下，還處路寢門終月也。」而考工記「周人明堂」，玄注曰：「或舉王寢，或舉明堂，互言之以明其制同也。」其同制之言皆出鄭注。然則明堂與寢不得異矣。而尚書顧命篇曰：「迎子釗南門之外，延入翼室。」此之翼室，即路寢矣。其下曰「大貝賁鼓在西房」，「垂之竹矢在東房」，此則路寢有左右房見於經史者也。禮記喪大記曰，「君夫人卒於路寢」，小斂，「婦人髽帶麻於房中」。鄭玄注曰：「此蓋諸侯禮，帶麻於房中，則西房。」 [7]天子諸侯左右房見於注者也。 [8]論路寢則明其左右房，[9]言明堂則闕其左右个，同制之說還相矛盾，通儒之注，何其然乎？使九室之徒奮筆而爭鋒者，豈不由處室之不當哉？

Zheng Xuan, late Han's comprehensive Confucian and later students' standard, places earth at the center and wood, fire, metal, and water in the four corners. Corner chambers miss the proper directions, so orders and new-moon rites each miss their center. The left and right ge are ignored; instead clever phrases say water and wood meet in the northeast, wood and fire in the southeast, fire and earth in the southwest, metal and water in the northwest. If one follows the Five Phases, one should follow their directions—what classic authorizes these meetings of dominion? This attacks heterodox paths with words wrong yet broad, misleading later students—not what one expects of former Confucians! "Jade Regalia" says the Son of Heaven "hears the new moon outside the southern gate; in an intercalary month he closes the gate, opens the left leaf, and stands within." Zheng Xuan notes, "The Son of Heaven's temple and road sleeping hall follow the Mingtang model. The Mingtang stands on the state's sunny side; each month he goes to that season's hall to hear the new moon. When finished he returns to lodge in the road sleeping hall as before. An intercalary month is irregular; he hears its new moon under the Mingtang gate and spends the month at the road sleeping hall gate." In "Zhou people's Mingtang" Xuan says, "Sometimes the king's sleeping hall is cited, sometimes the Mingtang—alternating to show one regulation." All claims that the regulations are the same come from Zheng's commentary. Then Mingtang and sleeping hall cannot differ. Yet the Documents "Charge to Zhong" says, "Receive Prince Zhao outside the southern gate and lead him into the Wing Chamber." That Wing Chamber is the road sleeping hall. Below: "great shells and decorated drums in the western room," "bamboo arrows in the eastern room"—here left and right rooms of the road sleeping hall appear in classics. "Greater Record of Mourning" says, "When the lord's wife dies in the road sleeping hall," at lesser dressing, "women bind hair with hemp in the inner room." Zheng notes, "This is probably feudal ritual; hemp in the inner room means the western room." [7] The Son of Heaven and feudal lords' left and right rooms appear in commentary. [8] On the road sleeping hall he clarifies left and right rooms; [9] on the Mingtang he omits left and right ge—the sameness theory contradicts itself. How can a comprehensive Confucian's note be so? That the nine-chamber school crosses swords—is it not because chamber placement is wrong?

記云：東西九筵，南北七筵，五室凡室二筵。置五室於斯堂，雖使班、倕構思，王爾營度，則不能令三室不居其南北也。然則三室之間，便居六筵之地，而室壁之外裁有四尺五寸之堂焉。豈有天子布政施令之所，宗祀文王以配上帝之堂，周公負扆以朝諸侯之處，而室戶之外僅餘四尺而已哉？假在儉約，為陋過矣。論其堂宇則偏而非制，求之道理則未愜人情，其不然一也。

The record says: nine mats east-west, seven north-south, five chambers of two mats each. Place five chambers in this hall—even Ban and Yi designing, Wang Er planning—three chambers must occupy north and south. Between three chambers lie six mats; outside the walls the hall is only four feet five inches wide. Can the Son of Heaven's hall of government, sacrifice to King Wen to match Heaven, and Duke of Zhou's audience of feudal lords leave only four feet beyond the doors? Even in frugality this would be absurdly cramped. Its hall is skewed, not regulation; in reason it fails human feeling—the first impossibility.

余恐為鄭學者，苟求必勝，競生異端以相訾抑。云二筵者，乃室之東西耳，南北則狹焉。余故備論之曰：若東西二筵，則室戶之外為丈三尺五寸矣。南北戶外復如此，則三室之中南北裁各丈二尺耳。記云：「四旁兩夾窗。」 [10]若為三尺之戶，二尺之窗，窗戶之間，裁盈一尺。繩樞甕牖之室，蓽門圭竇之堂，尚不然矣。假令復欲小廣之，則四面之外闊狹不齊，東西既深，南北更淺，屋宇之制，不為通矣。驗之眾塗，略無算焉。且凡室二筵，丈八地耳，然則戶牖之間不踰二尺也。禮記明堂：「天子負斧扆南向而立。」鄭玄注曰：設斧於戶牖之間。而鄭氏禮圖說扆制曰：「縱廣八尺，畫斧文於其上，今之屏風也。」以八尺扆置二尺之間，此之叵通，不待智者，較然可見矣。且若二筵之室為四尺之戶，則戶之兩頰裁各七尺耳，全以置之，猶自不容，矧復戶牖之間哉？其不然二也。

I fear Zheng's followers, bent on winning, will invent strange arguments to pull one another down. They say two mats are only east-west; north-south is narrow. I set out the argument: if east and west are two mats, outside the doors is one zhang three feet five inches. North and south outside are the same; within three chambers north and south are only one zhang two feet each. The record says, "On four sides, two flanking windows." [10] If doors are three feet and windows two, barely a foot lies between them. A hovel with rope hinge and jar window, a hall with brushwood gate, would still not be so mean. Enlarge it slightly and the outer breadths would be uneven—east-west deep, north-south shallow—the design would not cohere. Tested many ways, it scarcely computes. Two mats per chamber is only one zhang eight; door and window leave barely two feet between. Record of Rites "Mingtang": "The Son of Heaven, bearing the axe-screen, faces south." Zheng notes: set the axe between door and window. Zheng's ritual diagram says, "Eight feet long and broad, axe pattern painted—today's folding screen." An eight-foot screen in two feet—incoherent; any man can see it. If a two-mat chamber has a four-foot door, each cheek is barely seven feet—no room even for the door, let alone door and window together. The second impossibility.

又復以世代檢之，即虞夏尚朴，殷周稍文，制造之差，每加崇飾。而夏后世室，堂修二七，周人之制，反更促狹，豈是夏禹卑宮之意，周監郁郁之美哉？以斯察之，其不然三也。又云「堂崇一筵」，便基高九尺，而壁戶之外裁四尺五寸，於營制之法自不相稱。其不然四也。又云「室中度以几，堂上度以筵」，而復云「凡室二筵」，而不以几。還自相違，其不然五也。以此驗之，記者之謬，抑可見矣。

By generations: Yu and Xia prized simplicity, Yin and Zhou added ornament—each age grew more elaborate. Xia's later chambers were seven by two mats; Zhou's rule is narrower—this is neither Yu's low palaces nor Zhou's rich beauty. The third impossibility. "Hall one mat high" makes a nine-foot base, yet outside walls only four feet five—in building law this cannot match. The fourth impossibility. It says "chambers by bench, hall by mat," yet "each chamber two mats" not by bench. It contradicts itself—the fifth impossibility. Thus the record's errors appear.

盛德篇云：[11]「明堂凡九室，三十六戶，七十二牖，上員下方，東西九仞，南北七筵，堂高三尺也。」余謂盛德篇得之於戶牖，失之於九室。何者？五室之制，傍有夾房，面各有戶，戶有兩牖。此乃因事立則，非拘異術，戶牖之數，固自然矣。九室者，論之五帝，事既不合，施之時令，又失其辰。左右之个，重置一隅，兩辰同處，參差出入，斯乃義無所據，未足稱也。且又堂之修廣，裁六十三尺耳。假使四尺五寸為外之基，其中五十四尺便是五室之地。計其一室之中，僅可一丈，置其戶牖，則於何容之哉？若必小而為之，以容其數，則令帝王側身出入，斯為怪矣。此匪直不合典制，抑亦可哂之甚也。余謂其九室之言，誠亦有由。然竊以為戴氏聞三十六戶、七十二牖，弗見其制，靡知所置，便謂一室有四戶之窗，計其戶牖之數，即以為九室耳。或未之思也。蔡伯喈漢末之時學士，而見重於當時，即識其修廣之不當，而必未思其九室之為謬，更修而廣之，假其法像。可謂因偽飾辭，順非而澤，諒可歎矣。

"Accomplished Virtue" says: [11] "The Mingtang has nine chambers, thirty-six doors, seventy-two windows, round above square below, nine ren east-west, seven mats north-south, hall three feet high." I hold "Accomplished Virtue" is right on doors and windows, wrong on nine chambers. Why? Five chambers have flanking rooms; each face has doors, each door two windows. Rules arise from the affair itself, not from arbitrary artifice; the count of doors and windows follows naturally. Nine chambers, framed around the Five Emperors, fit neither the rites nor the seasonal calendar. Left and right ge crammed into one corner, two seasons sharing one site, rites uneven in and out—this has no proper basis and is not worth praising. Moreover the hall measures only sixty-three feet in length and breadth. Suppose the outer base is four feet five inches; within, fifty-four feet would be all the five chambers had. Each chamber would be barely one zhang within—where could doors and windows even fit? Shrink them to fit the numbers and emperors would have to sidle through—how absurd! This fails canonical regulation and is frankly ridiculous. Their talk of nine chambers does have some reason behind it. Yet I think the Dai clan heard of thirty-six doors and seventy-two windows, never saw the actual plan, and simply assumed four doors and windows per chamber—counting doors and windows, they called it nine chambers. Perhaps they never thought it through. Cai Yong, a late Han scholar honored in his day, saw the dimensions were wrong yet never questioned nine chambers; he enlarged the design and borrowed its form. This dresses falsehood in fine words and glosses error as truth—lamentable indeed.

余今省彼眾家，委心從善，庶探其衷，不為苟異。但是古非今，俗間之常情；愛遠惡近，世中之恒事。而千載之下，獨論古制，驚俗之談，固延多誚。脫有深賞君子者，覽而揣之，儻或存焉。

Now I survey the schools, follow what is sound, and hope to find their center without differing for mere contrariness. Honoring antiquity and rejecting the present is ordinary human prejudice; loving the far and disliking the near is the age's constant habit. A thousand years on, to argue ancient regulations alone is talk that shocks the crowd and will draw ridicule. If some deeply discerning gentleman reads and weighs this, perhaps something may endure.

謐不飲酒，好音律，愛樂山水，高尚之情，長而彌固，一遇其賞，悠爾忘歸。乃作神士賦，歌曰：「周孔重儒教，莊老貴無為。二途雖如異，一是買聲兒。生乎意不愜，死名用何施。可心聊自樂，終不為人移。脫尋余志者，陶然正若斯。」延昌四年卒，年三十二，遐邇悼惜之。

Mi did not drink, loved music and landscape; his lofty spirit grew firmer with age, and once he found what delighted him he forgot to return. He wrote the Rhapsody of the Divine Scholar, singing: "Zhou and Confucius honor Confucian teaching; Zhuangzi and Laozi prize non-action. The two paths seem unlike, yet both are buying a name. If life does not satisfy the heart, what good is fame after death? What pleases the heart may briefly content oneself; in the end one is not swayed by others. Whoever seeks my intent will find ease in just this." In Yanchang year 4 he died at thirty-two; mourners came from far and near.

其年，四門小學博士孔璠等學官四十五人上書曰：「竊見故處士趙郡李謐：十歲喪父，哀號罷隣人之相；幼事兄瑒，恭順盡友于之誠。十三通孝經、論語、毛詩、尚書，歷數之術尤盡其長，州閭鄉黨有神童之號。年十八，詣學受業，時博士即孔璠也。覽始要終，論端究緒，授者無不欣其言矣。於是鳩集諸經，廣校同異，比三傳事例，名春秋叢林，十有二卷。為璠等判析隱伏，垂盈百條。滯無常滯，纖毫必舉；通不長通，有枉斯屈。不苟言以違經，弗飾辭而背理。辭氣磊落，觀者忘疲。每曰：『丈夫擁書萬卷，何假南面百城。』遂絕跡下幃，杜門却掃，棄產營書，手自刪削，卷無重複者四千有餘矣。猶括次專家，搜比讜議，隆冬達曙，盛暑通宵。雖仲舒不闚園，君伯之閉戶，高氏之遺漂，張生之忘食，方之斯人，未足為喻。謐嘗詣故太常卿劉芳推問音義，語及中代興廢之由，芳乃歎曰：『君若遇高祖，侍中、太常非僕有也。』前河南尹、黃門侍郎甄琛內贊近機，朝野傾目，于時親識求官者，答云：『趙郡李謐，耽學守道，不悶于時，常欲致言，但未有次耳。諸君何為輕自媒衒？』謂其子曰：『昔鄭玄、盧植不遠數千里詣扶風馬融，今汝明師甚邇，何不就業也？』又謂朝士曰：『甄琛行不媿時，但未薦李謐，以此負朝廷耳。』又結宇依巖，憑崖鑿室，方欲訓彼青衿，宣揚墳典，冀西河之教重興、北海之風不墜。而祐善空聞，暴疾而卒。邦國銜殄悴之哀，儒生結摧梁之慕。況璠等或服議下風，或親承音旨，師儒之義，其可默乎！」事奏，詔曰：「謐屢辭徵辟，志守沖素，儒隱之操，深可嘉美。可遠傍惠、康，近準玄晏，諡曰貞靜處士，并表其門閭，以旌高節。」遣謁者奉冊，於是表其門曰文德，里曰孝義云。

That year Kong Fan, Erudite of the Four Gates Elementary School, and forty-five academic officers memorialized: "We observe the former recluse Li Mi of Zhao: at ten he lost his father and wailed until neighbors ceased condoling one another; in youth he served his elder brother Yang with full brotherly devotion. At thirteen he mastered the Filial Piety Classic, Analects, Mao Odes, and Documents; in calendrical arts he excelled—district and village called him a divine child. At eighteen he came to study; the erudite then was Kong Fan himself. From first to last he traced every thread; all who heard him were delighted. He gathered the classics, collated agreements and differences, compared the Three Commentaries, and compiled the Thicket of the Spring and Autumn in twelve scrolls. For Fan and others he resolved hidden difficulties—more than a hundred items. Where confusion had no fixed form, he raised the slightest point; where insight faltered, if there was error he corrected it. He would not speak carelessly against the classics or ornament words against reason. His manner was bold and open; listeners forgot fatigue. He often said, "A man with ten thousand scrolls—why need a hundred cities facing south?" He withdrew behind his curtain, shut his door, sold property for books, and personally edited more than four thousand scrolls without duplication. He still indexed specialists and compared commentaries—working from deep winter to dawn and through midsummer nights. Though Dong Zhongshu never glanced into his garden, Cui Yuan shut his door, Gao drifted on the river, and Zhang forgot to eat—none equals this man. Mi once visited former Minister of Ceremonies Liu Fang on sounds and meanings; speaking of dynastic rise and fall, Fang sighed: "Had you met Gaozu, Secretariat Director and Minister of Ceremonies would not have been mine." Former Henan Intendant and Palace Attendant Zhen Chen held power at court; when friends sought office he answered: "Li Mi of Zhao is absorbed in learning and keeps the Way, untroubled by the age—I have long meant to speak for him but lacked the chance. Why do you lightly peddle yourselves?" He told his son, "Zheng Xuan and Lu Zhi once traveled thousands of li to study with Ma Rong in Fufeng; your teacher is near—why not study?" He told court gentlemen, "Zhen Chen's conduct shames no one, but he failed the court by not recommending Li Mi." He built cliff dwellings and carved rock rooms, intending to teach young scholars and spread the classics, hoping to revive Xihe's teaching and keep Beihai's wind alive. Yet Heaven's favor rang hollow; he died suddenly. The realm mourned a broken pillar; scholars mourned a fallen beam. How much more Fan and others, some submitting to his teaching, some hearing him in person—how could teacher and student stay silent!" The memorial reached the throne; the edict said, "Mi repeatedly declined summons; his will guards pure simplicity—recluse conduct deeply praiseworthy. Compare him from afar to Hui and Kang, near at hand to Xuan Yan; grant the posthumous title Recluse of Upright Stillness and mark his gate and lane to honor his integrity." A messenger bore the patent; his gate was marked Literary Virtue and his lane Filial Duty.

鄭脩，北海人也。少隱於岐南几谷中，依巖結宇，獨處淡然，屏迹人事，不交世俗，耕食水飲，皮冠草服，雅好經史，專意玄門。前後州將，每徵不至。岐州刺史魏蘭根頻遣致命，脩不得已，暫出見蘭根，尋還山舍。蘭根申表薦脩，肅宗詔付雍州刺史蕭寶夤訪實以聞。會寶夤作逆，事不行。

Zheng Xiu came from Beihai. In youth he retired to Jigu Valley south of Qi, built cliff dwellings, lived alone in calm detachment, shunned worldly affairs, plowed and drank water, wore bark crown and grass robes, loved the classics, and devoted himself to the Way. Provincial governors repeatedly summoned him; he never came. Wei Langen, Inspector of Qi, sent repeated summons; Xiu, unable to refuse, briefly met him and soon returned to the hills. Langen memorialized recommending Xiu; Emperor Suzong ordered Yongzhou Inspector Xiao Baoyin to investigate and report. When Baoyin rebelled, the matter came to nothing.

史臣曰：古之所謂隱逸者，非伏其身而不見也，非閉其言而不出也，非藏其智而不發也。蓋以恬淡為心，不曒不昧，安時處順，與物無私者也。眭夸輩忘懷纓冕，畢志丘園。或隱不違親，貞不絕俗；或不教而勸，虛往實歸。非有自然純德，其孰能至於此哉？

The historiographer says: Antiquity's recluses did not hide the body unseen, seal words unspoken, or bury wisdom unused. They took calm detachment as heart, neither glaring nor dim, settled with the age, and held no private grudge against things. Sui Kua and his kind forgot rank and fulfilled their will in garden and field. Some withdrew without failing kin, remained pure without severing the world; some taught without preaching—empty in departure, full in return. Without innate pure virtue, who could reach this?

校勘記

Collation notes

魏書卷九十諸本卷末〈殿本入考證〉有宋人校語云：「魏收書逸士傳亡，史臣論全用隋書隱逸傳〈卷七七〉論。」按傳序刪節北史卷八八隱逸傳序，論也全同北史，唯刪去後數語。宋人認為論全用隋書，其實北史傳論刪節隋書，此傳又襲北史。諸傳皆同北史隱逸傳相同諸人，李謐則北史附卷三二李孝伯傳，除傳首數語外也無不同。此卷應是以北史補。唯眭夸傳有溢出語，或採之他書。

End of Book of Wei scroll 90 in various editions 〈Entered into textual verification in the Palace Edition〉 A Song collation note says: "Wei Shou's Biography of Reclusive Scholars is lost; the historiographer's judgment wholly uses the Sui History's Biography of Reclusion 〈scroll 77〉 judgment." The preface abridges the Northern History scroll 88 preface; the judgment matches the Northern History, with only the final phrases cut. Song scholars thought the judgment came wholly from the Sui History; in fact the Northern History abridged the Sui, and this biography follows the Northern History. The biographies match the Northern History figures; Li Mi is attached in Northern History scroll 32 to Li Xiaobo—aside from the opening lines they are identical. This scroll was likely patched from the Northern History. Only Sui Kua's biography has extra language, perhaps drawn from another book.

世宗給其工力諸本「世宗」作「世祖」，北史卷八八作「宣武」。按上已見「世宗」，「祖」是「宗」之訛，今據改。

"The emperor gave him laborers": editions read "ancestral emperor"; Northern History scroll 88 reads "Xuanwu." "Emperor" already appears above; "ancestral" is a corruption of "emperor"—corrected here.

趙郡人諸本「趙」作「涿」。洪頤煊諸史考異卷一０據李孝伯、李安世傳〈卷五三〉和下文兩言趙郡李謐，以為「涿」字訛。按李安世一族出於趙郡，歷見紀載，洪說是，今改正。

"Man of Zhao commandery": editions read "Zhuo" for "Zhao." Hong Yixuan, Varia on Various Histories scroll 10, citing the biographies of Li Xiaobo and Li Anshi 〈scroll 53〉 and the two mentions below of Li Mi of Zhao, holds "Zhuo" erroneous. The Li Anshi clan came from Zhao commandery throughout the records; Hong is right—corrected here.

其室居中者謂之太室諸本「室」作「廟」，北史卷三二李孝伯附李謐傳百衲本此字缺，他本及冊府卷五七二〈六八七五頁〉作「室」。按下文也都作「太室」。此傳以北史補，當是舊本缺此字，補此傳者妄補「廟」字，今據冊府改。

"The central chamber is called the Grand Chamber": editions read "temple" for "chamber"; Northern History scroll 32 Li Mi appendix, Baiqia edition lacks the character; other editions and Cefu scroll 572 〈page 6875〉 read "chamber." Below, all read "Grand Chamber." This biography was patched from the Northern History; the old text likely lacked the character and the patcher wrongly wrote "temple"—corrected per Cefu.

可謂施政及祀諸本「謂」訛「請」，不可通，今據北史卷三０、冊府卷五七二〈六八七六頁〉、通志卷一七八李謐傳改。又「祀」字，諸本作「記」，北史作「俱」，通志作「祀」。按上文云：「夫明堂者蓋所以告月朔、布時令、宗文王、祀五帝者也。」又云：「且四時之祀，各據其方之正。」「俱」字無義，「記」字也牽強，今據通志改。

"One may say government and sacrifice": editions corrupt "say" to "request"—corrected per Northern History scroll 30 and Cefu scroll 572 〈page 6876〉 and Comprehensive Gazetteer scroll 178, Li Mi biography. The character "sacrifice": editions read "record"; Northern History "both"; Comprehensive Gazetteer "sacrifice." Above: "The Mingtang announces the new moon, promulgates seasons, honors King Wen, and sacrifices to the Five Emperors." It also says: "Seasonal sacrifices each take their proper direction." "Both" is meaningless; "record" is forced—corrected per Comprehensive Gazetteer.

既依五行當從其方用事之交諸本及北史卷三０無「方」字，通志卷一七八有。按無「方」字語不可解，今據補。

"Since one relies on the Five Phases one should follow their directions—the meeting of dominion": editions and Northern History scroll 30 lack "directions"; Comprehensive Gazetteer scroll 178 has it. Without "directions" the sentence is unclear—supplemented here.

帶麻於房中則西房諸本及北史卷三０「房」作「南」，冊府卷五七二〈六八七六頁〉作「房」。按禮記玉藻鄭注本文是「西房」，李謐引鄭注在於指出鄭說路寢有左右房。「南」字訛，今據本文及冊府改。

"Binding hemp in the inner room means the western room": editions and Northern History scroll 30 read "south" for "room"; Cefu scroll 572 〈page 6876〉 reads "room." "Jade Regalia" Zheng commentary reads "western room"; Li Mi cites it to show Zheng held the road sleeping hall had left and right rooms. "South" is a corruption—corrected per the original text and Cefu.

天子諸侯左右房見於注者也李慈銘云：「按鄭注云『天子、諸侯有左右房』，此處當重一句云：『此則天子諸侯有左右房見於注者也』。」按文義當是上脫「天子諸侯有左右房〈鄭注引至此〉，此則」十字。李說重一句也不可通。

That the Son of Heaven and feudal lords have left and right rooms appears in commentary. Li Ciming says Zheng's note reads that they have left and right rooms, and argues a sentence should be repeated here to that effect." By the sense of the text, the line above probably dropped the words 'the Son of Heaven and feudal lords have left and right rooms 〈Zheng commentary cited to this point〉 , this then'—ten characters." Li's proposal to repeat a sentence will not work either.

論路寢則明其左右房諸本及北史卷三０無「房」字，冊府卷五七二〈六八七六頁〉有。按上文一再引鄭注都用來證明鄭說路寢有左右房，此句「左右房」和下「左右个」為對文，傳本脫「房」字，今據補。

"Discussing the road sleeping hall clarifies its left and right rooms": editions and Northern History scroll 30 lack "rooms"; Cefu scroll 572 〈page 6876〉 has it. Above, Zheng's commentary is cited repeatedly to show he held the road sleeping hall had left and right rooms; here "left and right rooms" parallels "left and right ge" below—the transmitted text dropped "rooms"—restored here.

記云四旁兩夾窗諸本「旁」作「房」，北史卷三０作「旁」。按周禮考工記原文作「旁」。「房」字訛，今據改。

"The record says four sides with two flanking windows": editions read "room" for "side"; Northern History scroll 30 reads "side." The Zhou Rites "Artificers" original reads "side." "Room" is a corruption—corrected here.

盛德篇云按下引文今大戴禮傳本實在明堂篇〈第六十七〉，盛德篇在第六十六，或李謐所見本分合與今傳本有異。

"Accomplished Virtue" says: the passage quoted below actually stands in the "Mingtang" chapter of today's Elder Dai Rites 〈scroll sixty-seven〉 , while "Accomplished Virtue" is scroll sixty-six—perhaps the division Li Mi saw differed from today's text.

Cite this Chapter