他要自己的坟以后找不着。「故吾營此丘墟不食之地，欲使易代之後不知其處。」——把这块不长庄稼的荒地做成寿陵，为的是改朝换代之后没人知道它在哪里。说这话的是魏文帝曹丕。黄初三年（222）十月甲子，他「表首陽山東爲壽陵，作終制曰」，把这篇话写成诏书。
寿陵因山为体
终制第一条讲形制，讲得很硬：「壽陵因山爲體，無爲封樹，無立寑殿，造園邑，通神道。」——陵体就着山势，不另起坟堆、不种树，不设寝殿，不造园邑，不修神道。他先举两个古例：「昔堯葬穀林，通樹之，禹葬會稽，農不易畝」，所以说「封樹之制，非上古也，吾無取焉」。这是形制主张，不是施工图：两页没有寿陵的尺寸、四至，也没有墓内结构的任何一句。
他给这套主张的理由，一半讲形制，一半讲「藏」：「夫葬也者，藏也，欲人之不得見也。骨無痛痒之知，冢非棲神之宅，禮不墓祭，欲存亡之不黷也，爲棺槨足以朽骨，衣衾足以朽肉而已。」——葬就是藏；骨头没有痛痒的知觉，坟也不是神住的地方；棺槨够装骨头、衣衾够包住肉就行。这是他自己的论断，不是礼书引文；「礼不墓祭」只说了这一句，没有展开。
无藏金玉，无施珠襦
随葬的东西也一条条列了：「無施葦炭，無藏金銀銅鐵，一以瓦器，合古塗車、芻靈之義。棺但漆際會三過，飯含無以珠玉，無施珠襦玉匣，諸愚俗所爲也。」——不填苇炭，不藏金银铜铁，一律用瓦器，合古时涂车、刍灵的意思；棺材只在接缝处漆三遍，饭含不用珠玉，不穿珠襦玉匣。他说这些是「愚俗所为」。两页对「苇炭」「涂车刍灵」都没有注，本篇不替它们补形制。
他父亲先做过同样的安排。《通典》记魏武王「先自製送終衣服四篋，題識其上，春秋冬夏，曰有不諱，隨時以斂，金珥珠玉銅鐵之物，一不得送」——四个箱子，箱上标好春夏秋冬，死了按季节取用，金玉铜铁一概不送。曹丕的终制还点了两件春秋旧事：「季孫以璵璠斂，孔子歷級而救之」；「宋公厚葬，君子謂華元、樂莒不臣」。这些典故两页都没有注，只点到为止。两页里曹魏一朝的这类规矩只有曹操的遗令和曹丕的终制两份，没有第三个人；所以看不出什么「风气」——「曹魏薄葬成风」，这两页撑不住。
未有不亡之国，亦无不掘之墓
然后是那句常被引的话：「自古及今，未有不亡之國，亦無不掘之墓也。喪亂以來，漢氏諸陵無不發掘，至乃燒取玉匣金縷，骸骨并盡，是焚如之刑也，豈不重痛哉！禍由乎厚葬封樹。」——国没有不亡的，墓也没有不被掘的；丧乱以来汉家诸陵都被发掘，烧取玉匣金缕，连骸骨都没了；祸根在厚葬、在封树。要看清，这是论辩句：他在说服群臣接受自己的安排，不是给汉陵做统计；两页没有逐陵清单，也没有盗掘的年月与数目。
他拿两个例子作证：「漢文帝之不發，霸陵無求也；光武之掘，原陵封樹也。霸陵之完，功在釋之；原陵之掘，罪在明帝。」——霸陵没被掘，因为里面没有可求之物；原陵被掘，因为封树。《通典》记汉文帝遗诏也说「霸陵山川因其故，無有所改」，应劭注：「因山爲藏，不復起墳。」可见「因山」不是曹丕想出来的，霸陵已是这个办法。这里的「明帝」是东汉明帝，光武帝的儿子；后面裴注里还有一个「明帝」，是魏明帝曹叡——同称「明帝」，两个皇帝，不能混。
违诏者，戮尸地下
他也知道一纸诏书管不住身后，所以把话说得很重：「若違今詔，妄有所變改造施，吾爲戮尸地下，戮而重戮，死而重死。臣子爲蔑死君父，不忠不孝，使死者有知，將不福汝。」后面还定了存档：「其以此詔藏之宗廟，副在尚書、祕書、三府。」——正本藏宗庙，副本放在尚书、秘书、三府三处。
连后妃也一起安排了：「其皇后及貴人以下，不隨王之國者，有終沒皆葬澗西，前又以表其處矣。」——皇后、贵人以下，没有随王去封国的，死后都葬在涧西，地方已经标出来了。他举舜与延陵为说：「蓋舜葬蒼梧，二妃不從，延陵葬子，遠在嬴、博，魂而有靈，無不之也，一澗之閒，不足爲遠。」——魂要是有灵，哪里都去得，隔一条涧不算远。这一条是让后妃也别另起大陵。
后来
黄初七年五月丁巳，曹丕崩于嘉福殿，时年四十；六月戊寅，葬首阳陵。《三国志》只加了一句：「自殯及葬，皆以終制從事。」——从入殓到下葬，都照终制办。这是史书的一句交代，不是对陵墓的实测；两页没有说首阳陵后来怎样，也没有尺寸、封土、墓室的话。《魏氏春秋》另记一件事：明帝要去送葬，曹真、陈群、王朗等「以暑熱固諫，乃止」。
参考来源与延伸阅读
- 《三国志》卷二·魏书·文帝纪（西晋陈寿；维基文库本，未与点校本复核） — The final ordinance in full, given under the tenth month of huangchu 3 (222): 'the mausoleum takes the mountain for its body; no mound, no trees, no resting hall, no garden town, no spirit road' (壽陵因山爲體，無爲封樹，無立寑殿，造園邑，通神道); 'burial is storage, and the point is that men cannot see it' (夫葬也者，藏也，欲人之不得見也); 'I am building this tomb on waste ground that will not feed anyone, so that after the dynasty changes no one will know where it is' (故吾營此丘墟不食之地，欲使易代之後不知其處); 'no reed charcoal, no gold, silver, copper or iron; nothing but pottery' (無施葦炭，無藏金銀銅鐵，一以瓦器), 'the coffin lacquered three times at the joins only, no pearls or jade in the mouth-filling, no pearl-sewn shroud or jade case' (棺但漆際會三過，飯含無以珠玉，無施珠襦玉匣); the two Spring and Autumn cases (Ji Sun's jade, the Duke of Song's burial); the comparison with Han Wen's Ba ling and Guang Wu's Yuan ling, and 'the digging of Yuan ling was Emperor Ming's crime' (原陵之掘，罪在明帝) — here the Han emperor Ming, not Cao Rui; the argument itself, 'no state that did not perish, no tomb that was not opened … the calamity comes from lavish burial and from mounds and groves' (自古及今，未有不亡之國，亦無不掘之墓也……禍由乎厚葬封樹); the curse on anyone who alters it (若違今詔……將不福汝) and the filing of copies in the ancestral temple, the master of writing's office, the secretariat and the three excellencies; the consorts to be buried west of the stream (皆葬澗西). The chapter also records his death in huangchu 7, aged forty, burial at Shouyang, and the single line 'from the laying out to the burial, everything was done according to the final ordinance' (自殯及葬，皆以終制從事) — a report, not an inspection. The same juan lists his terraces and ponds (Lingyun terrace, Lingzhi pond, Southern Tour terrace, Tianyuan pond, Jiuhua terrace), and Pei Songzhi's note records that under Emperor Ming the Taiji and Zhaoyang halls were begun.
- 《通典》卷七十九·礼三十九·凶礼一（唐杜佑；维基文库本，未与点校本复核） — The Tang compilation's chapter on imperial death and tombs, which carries the Wei material in a different text. Cao Cao's own arrangement: 'he had four cases of final garments made in advance, each labelled, for spring, summer, autumn and winter … of gold, earrings, pearls, jade, copper and iron, not one thing was to be sent with him' (先自製送終衣服四篋……金珥珠玉銅鐵之物，一不得送). The final ordinance in abridged form: 'the mausoleum takes the mountain for its body; no mound, no trees, no resting hall, no garden town; this ordinance is kept in the ancestral temple' (壽陵因山為體，無封樹，無立寢殿，無造園邑。此詔藏之宗廟) — note that this text lacks the Shi Ji's 'no spirit road' clause and reads slightly differently. It also preserves Han Wen's last decree ('the mountains and rivers at Ba ling stay as they are, with nothing changed', 霸陵山川因其故，無有所改) with Ying Shao's note 'taking the mountain for the burial, raising no mound' (因山為藏，不復起墳), which is the precedent for Cao Pi's phrase. Du You's own verdict: 'this ordinance of Wen of Wei may be said to understand the matter' (魏文此制，可謂達於事矣). And in 635 Yu Shinan, opposing lavish burial, copied the ordinance into his memorial and quoted Zhang Shizhi's words about 'if there is something to desire inside, even walling in the southern mountain leaves a crack' — evidence of the text's later use as an argument, not of its execution.
