37.1.4.5 to 56 - Sherlock-ing on the origins of an ancestor

[luckyseason]

37 when asking about an ancestor! I love when replies come like this.

As for the background: on my mother's side of the family, there was one great-grandfather who apparently fled from Poland, came to Brazil as a stowaway and was adopted by an italian family as means of finding a job: he adopted their surname.

His surname, the original polish one, was remembered only by him and a son, & apparently it was something he only mentioned while drunk. The son who remembered it apparently has also forgotten (and he lives far away, is old, and in general very difficult to contact. I've never met him, he's one of my mom's uncles. I keep trying anyways before he dies).

Back to the story. It always puzzled me what circumstances led to this flight from Poland, and the change of names. My most logical deduction would be that whoever he was, the surname carried some heavy background, and if he fled, it means he was being prosecuted. As family lore goes, his father was involved in some crime (murder) and because of that he fled, and the family had to disband and flee. But why would a family pay for the crimes of the father? When I connected the dots, my guess was that he was jewish, and that this connects to why he fled Poland. My mom also said he wouldn't go to church, only my great-granny, and she was a catholic. Yet I have no way to confirm for now...

OR I WOULDN'T, had I no connections to an oracle ! I could have phrased in a way that's not yes or no, but I asked, literally: "Was this ancestor a Jew?"

37.1.4.5 > 56

56 as the relating hexagram pretty much sums it up as someone wandering far from whence they called home. As I see, Yi stated that because of family matters he moved away. Line 5 points to the influence of the father, right? But is generally more positive than murder. It does say that the sovereign's influence extends to others. I can interpret that whatever characteristic was possessed by his ancestor, so did he. He was seen in the same light, of being guilty, or he took part in the murder. Since he was only 15, I would go with the former.

As for the others I'm confused. In historical context, the pogroms in the 20th century started because Jews were seen as having a hold of the market, which I could connect to line 4, and the way they tried to establish boundaries and the whole Zionist aspect behind the outbreak of said pogroms, as line 1. And all of these things taken into account would lead to 56: flight! (Of course this could all be wrong and mean something totally different)

I hope you all could enlighten me with some insight into century old family gossip, and the reconnection to a very obscure part of my roots!

Thanks

 

[kestrelw1ngs]

What a fascinating topic to query Yi with!

I hope some more knowledgeable members can parse lines for you here.

I do not often use the taoscopy site (the author has been banned from these forums I think?) but the interpretations that come up when one searches on Google are sometimes interesting.

Taoscopy says for this reading:

37.1.4.5 (37 > 56) - Nuff said​

One considers that one has been clear enough so one does not say anything anymore

Hm. Not much to go on there.


Looking in some other threads, LiSe's commentary might be more relevant.
For Line 1:

To barricade one's home. Regrets disappear.
A home and a place where you belong create in your heart also a home and place where you belong. Whatever happens, you will never be lost in a big hostile world. Only with trust in yourself you can trust others (and others can trust you), because trust grows in a safe heart.

A hostile world, but an inner belonging through deciding whom one can trust.

Line 4

A rich family. Great auspiciousness.
One strong dependable person can be the base of a big family. A family needs a foundation, everyone who contributes to that is worth his weight in gold. The family will survive through hard times, the children will grow up to strong individuals, the members will all feel safe and at home. All these different people need a common base to stand on

Line 5:

The king serves the family. Do not worry. Auspicious.
Acknowledge your own clan. A family is a little kingdom when the members are tied together by pride and belief in their community. When a family has a ‘ruler’ who places herself in its service, then it can withstand hard times and its members have a safe home.

Line 1 about defending from a hostile world, Line 4 correlating with a rich family, and line 5 with a beneficent father/patriarch serving a clan or community, 56 with being a wanderer....honestly, from my limited perspective as a Gentile who has read minorly of the traditions of Judaism (though with possible Yiddish/Jewish ancestry from Odessa & Poland also, further back than my genealogical knowledge goes, my family also has immigrant history but is Catholic so far as the story goes), I can't imagine a more Jewish reading!

Perhaps your ancestor fled his lineage as well as his country out of a beneficent desire to "barricade the home" against hostility from those who perceived Jewish identity as wealth to be stolen. The faith of the Jewish diaspora has much to say about wandering, homecoming and resilience in the face of persecution.

 

[luckyseason]

Thanks for the insight kestrel!

I've been mulling over this reading since I cast it. The thing is, it's looks so clear an answer that I question my ability to interpret it! Rarely does this happen, so my fear is going the easy route to fit it into my own conception of what happened. Yet in a way all the answer does is fit into the question!

If I strip away the question all I have left is: There's a family, it's wealthy, there's need to keep itself protected > Someone ends up wandering.

And even now I could find more meaning to the story. Given the importance of the feminine figure, I could infer that the decision to send the children away was done by the mother, as an act of protection, and from the absence of the father (as the family tells). Stowing away on a ship doesn't seem simple, especially for a fifteen year old boy. I guess, whatever else it's telling me, there was money and/or influence involved into getting him onto the ship. Which could in turn fit with the merchant class position occupied by jews as bourgeois in Poland (and elsewhere). Guess the real treasure was more the surviving than the material possessions, if a tiny bit of the values he held in his family survived and got to me. And who knows, by uncovering this, I'll be keeping that heart alive too.

I'll keep researching until I find whatever truth the story holds . Thanks once more!

 

[kestrelw1ngs]

Of course! Best of luck in Sherlocking your heritage