Great Discourses on Zhengtong in Ancient and Current Times (古今正统大论)
By Zheng Sixiao (鄭思肖)
Translated by Devin Fitzgerald
Annotations and emendations by Maura Dykstra
后世之论古今天下正统者，议率多端。自春秋后，史笔不知大伦所在，不过纪事耳。纪事而不明正理，是者非，伪者正，后世无以 明其得失，诸史之通弊也。中国之事，系乎正统；正统之治，出于圣人。中国正统之史，乃后世中国正统帝王之取法者，亦以教后世天下之人所以为臣为子也。岂宜 列之以嬴政、王莽、曹操、孙坚、拓拔珪、十六夷国等，与中国正统互相夷虏之语，杂附于正史之间？且书其秦、新室、魏、吴、元魏、十六夷国名年号，及某祖、某帝、朕、诏、太子、封禅等事，竟无以别其大伦？先主为中山之后，本称汉，陈寿作史，降之曰蜀；于逆操史中乃称「蜀丞相诸葛亮入寇」，若此等类，岂不冤哉！
In later ages， discussions of the Zhengtong of the all-under-heaven of antiquity and the present have deployed many contradictory perspectives. Aside from the Spring and Autumn Annals, the brushes of historians have not understood properly the alignment of the greatest relations. They have merely recorded events. To just record events and to not illuminate their proper principles (li) makes truth into falsehood and the apocryphal into the orthodox. Later ages cannot clarify what was gained or lost, and so all history is uniformly corrupted. Under what possible circumstances can the foreign and strange dialects of power of The First Qin Emperor, Wang Mang, Cao Cao, Sun Jian, Tuobayu, and the 16 Outlander Domains be arrayed within the zhengtong of the Middle kingdoms through their indiscriminate inclusion amidst the Official Histories?
As for the matter of the Central Kingdom (zhongguo), it is unified in having zhengtong. The governance of zhengtong emerged from the sages. The history of the zhengtong of the Middle Kingdom (zhongguo) consists of those methods by which zhengtong emperors and kings of the latter age obtained the Middle Kingdom (zhongguo). It is also that which teaches the people of the latter age how to behave as both ministers and sons…
臣行君事、夷狄行中国事，古今天下之不祥，莫大于是。夷狄行中国事，非夷狄之福，实夷狄之妖孽。譬如牛马，一旦忽解人语，衣其毛尾，裳其四蹄，三尺之童见 之，但曰「牛马之妖」，不敢称之曰「人」，实大怪也。中庸曰：「素夷狄行乎夷狄。」此一语盖断古今夷狄之经也。
If the ministers acts on a ruler’s matters and the outlander acts on the matters of the Central Kingdom (zhongguo), nothing, either in the past or the present, could be more inauspicious. If barbarians act on the matters of the Central Kingdom (zhongguo), this is not to the good fortune of the barbarians, but rather will lead them into disaster. It is just as if a horse or cow one day could suddenly understand humans. Dressing their hides and tails, putting court gowns around their four hooves, any small child that saw them would proclaim, “There’s a demon in the form of a horse or cow!“ No one would dare to call them ‘human,’ for that would truly be too perverse. It is as the Doctrine of the Mean says: “Situated among tribes of outlanders, he does what is proper to a situation among outlander tribes.” This one phrase is the constant for the outlander tribes both in antiquity and today.
拓拔珪、十六夷国，不素行夷狄之事，纵如拓 拔珪（伪称元魏，伪谥文帝）之礼乐文物，僭行中国之事以乱大伦，是衣裳牛马而称曰人也，实为夷狄之大妖，宁若即夷狄而行夷狄之事以天其天也。
Tuobayu and the sixteen outlander states did not do as is proper to outlanders. They all indulged themselves in ritual, music, and literary culture – like Tuobayu (who set up a false sate called the Wei and adopted the false imperial name of Wendi). They presumptuously claimed to be conducting themselves in the matters of the Central Kingdom (zhongguo) and thereby brought disorder to morality. This is like a cow or horse dressed in court robes calling itself a human. Truly, they were demonic outlanders, for they did not behave as outlanders and conduct outlander matters, which, had they done so, would have been regarding Heaven as Heaven.
君臣华夷，古 今天下之大分也，宁可紊哉！若夫夷狄风俗兴亡之事，许存于本史，如国号类中国之号（所谓僭号元魏是也），及年号某祖、某帝、某皇后、太子、朕、诏、封禅、 郊祀、太庙等事，应犯天子行事等语，苟不削之，果与中国正统班乎？若国名素其玁狁、单于之号，及官职、州县并从之，犹古之列国，亦犹古者要荒之外，夷狄之 地；古者圣人得柔远之道，所以不致其犯分，御之失道，则猖獗四驰矣。
The important divisions in both antiquity and today have been those between minister and ruler; and Chinese (hua) and outlander. How can they be confused! As for the affairs of the rise and fall, as well as the customs, of barbarian tribes able to be preserved in [Official] histories: they are given dynastic names like those of the central kingdom (zhongguo) (just as the Wei claimed their name), reign titles, temple titles, imperial titles, imperial heirs, “We the emperor,” imperial edicts, worship, suburban rituals, and matters like the imperial temple, if these are not excised, does that not mean their zhengtong is of the same nature as the Central Kingdom (zhongguo)?
或曰：「拓拔氏及今极北部落，皆黄帝后，姑假之亦可。」曰，譬如公卿大夫之子孙，弃堕诗礼，或悦为皂隶，或流为盗贼，岂可复语先世之事，而列于君子等耶！ 况四裔之外，素有一种孽气，生为夷狄，如毛人国、猩猩国、狗国、女人国等，其类极异，决非中国人之种类，开辟以后即有之，谓黄帝之后、夏后氏之后则非也。
Some say: “The Tuoba line are the northernmost of the tribes. They are all the descendants of the Yellow Emperor. Thus we cannot claim they are false.” I say they are like the sons and grandsons of a gentleman who have abandoned poetry and ritual. Perhaps they take pleasure in being clerks and runners, or perhaps some spread out as bandits and thieves. Why should we then mention the affairs of their ancestors and array them at the same level as gentlemen? Furthermore, beyond the four frontiers, there has always been a corrupting atmosphere. Those born as outlanders, like the hairy people, gorrilla people, cur state, and female state, have always been of extremely different types. They are absolutely not of the same sort as the people of the middle kingdom (zhongguo). From creation, it has always been thus. So to refer to them as descendents of the Yellow Emperor or the Xia family is incorrect.
孟子曰：「舜、文，东夷、西夷之人也。」史记曰：「舜，冀州人也，黄帝之子昌意七世孙。」且文王之先尝避狄难矣，未可遽以东夷、西夷之说而论舜、文也。 舜、文，大圣人，岂可执东夷、西夷之语例论后世夷狄也哉？
Mencius said, “Shun and Wen were outlanders from the east and west.” The Records of the Grand Historian said, “Shun was from Jizhou (modern Hebei). He was the seventh generation grandson of the Yellow emperor’s son Chang’yi.” Further, King Wen’s ancestors fled an outlander attack! How can he have suddenly come up with the discourse the Shun and Wen were eastern and western outlanders? Shun and Wen were great sages. How can one hold up these words that they were eastern and western outlanders to put them into discussions of the outlanders of later ages?
其曰北史，是与中国抗冲之称，宜黜曰「胡史」，仍修改其书，夺其僭用天子制度等语。
其曰南史，实 以偏方小之，然中国一脉系焉，宜崇曰「四朝正史」（南史但载宋齐梁陈），故曰「四朝」。不亦宜乎？
As for the histories of the northern dynasties, they were at war and in conflict with the middle kingdom (zhongguo). It is fitting that we should dismiss them as “Barbarian histories.” After all, those who edited and compiled these books, seized the throne and improperly used language like “the institutions of the son of Heaven.” With regards to the histories of the southern dynasties, these states were in fact just small territories. Nonetheless, they were connected to the veins of the central kingdom’s (zhongguo) tradition. It is appropriate to extol them as “orthodox histories of the four dynasties.” Thus we call this the age of “Four Dynasties.” Is this not right?
嬴政不道，王莽篡逆，刘玄降赤眉，刘盆子为赤眉所挟，五 代篡逆尤甚，冥冥长夜，皆不当与之。普六茹坚小字那罗延（僭称隋，僭谥文帝，普六茹译姓曰杨）。夺伪周宇文辟之土，而并僭陈之天下，本夷狄也，魏证犹引 「杨震十四世孙」书之，此必普六茹坚援引前贤以华族谱云，并宜黜其国名、年号，惟直书其姓名及甲子焉。如遇某祖、某帝、朕、诏、封禅、郊祀、太庙等事，宜 书曰：「普六茹某僭行某事。」吕后称制八年，武后称制廿一年，牝鸡之晨，俱恶逆事，书法同前；但仍书曰吕后；但武后本非高宗后，其名不正，亦不当以后书 之。
Because of Qin’s lack of the way, Wang Mang’s usurpation of the throne, Liu Xuan’s surrendering to the the Red Eyebrow Rebels, Liu Panzi’s coercion at their hand, and the constant rebellion of the five dynasties, it was as though a deep night had settled and there was no one who ought to be given [the central kingdom]. Puliuru Jian [founder of the Sui], who styled himself Naluoyan (seized the throne for the Sui, and was given the improper temple name of Wendi, Puliuru was the surname that was translated into Yang) seized land at the edge of Yuwen of Zhou’s territory and claimed that he had seized all-under-heaven. He was originally a barbarian. Wei Zheng, however, wrote that he was the fourteenth generation descendent of Yang Zhen. This must have been written so that Puliuru Jian could draw upon the worthies of previous ages for a Chinese genealogy. Thus, we should expurgate their dynastic name, their reign periods, and only record the numerical dates and the names and surnames. If we find ‘XX ancestor’, ‘XX emperor’, the royal ‘We’, ‘decrees’, ‘imperial tours of worship’, ‘royal sacrifices‘, the ‘Altar of State,’ etc, we should instead write, “Puliuru XX improperly practiced XX thing.” Empress Lu reigned for eight years and Empress Wu reigned for twenty-one years.These women usurped authority, a great evil and rebellious thing. Yet, the historical record was written as though it was normal,calling her “Empress Lu,” whereas with Empress Wu, she was not actually the empress of Gaozong. Since that was not her title, she should have been given it in the history.
如自古以来，诸国之名仍存之，盖出于天子之所封也。
若论古今正统，则三皇、五帝、三代、西汉、东汉、蜀汉、大宋而已。司马绝无善治，或谓后化为牛氏矣。宋、齐、梁、陈，藐然缀中国之一脉，四姓廿四帝，通不 过百七十年，俱无善治，俱未足多议，故两晋、宋、齐、梁、陈，可以中国与之，不可列之于正统。
Since antiquity, the names of all the states have remained, and they came from the places where they were enfeoffed. If we discuss the zhengtong of antiquity and today, then we can only say the three emperors, the five rulers, the three ages, the eastern and western Han, and the great Song have had it. The Sima family [of the Jin] did not excel in governance. Some say that they became the Niu family in later generations. The Song, Qi, Liang, and Chen states were small, but together inherited the line of the central kingdom (zhongguo). With the four ruling families and twenty-four emperors, they did not last more than one hundred and seventy years. Since none of them were good at governing, there is not much to discuss. Moreover, although the two Jin, Song, Qi, Liang, and Chen can be called ‘Central Kingdoms (zhongguo),’ we cannot talk of them having zhengtong.
李唐为晋载记凉武昭王李暠七世孙，实夷狄之裔，况其诸君家法 甚缪戾，特以其并包天下颇久，贞观开元太平气象，东汉而下未之有也，姑列之于中国，特不可以正统言。夷狄行中国之事曰「僭」，人臣篡人君之位曰「逆」，斯 二者天理必诛。
The Li family is recorded in Jin records as having been the seventh generation descendents of the the Jin prince of Liang Wu, Li Gao. In truth, they were descended from outlanders. Moreover, the family rules of each of these rulers were corrupt and twisted so that they could hold on to all-under-heaven for a long time, making the Zhenguan reign have an air of peace unseen since the Eastern Han. For that reason, they are considered a ‘Central Kingdom (zhongguo),’ but we still cannot talk of their zhengtong. When outlanders do things proper to the ‘Central Kingdom’ then they are called ‘usurpers.’ When officials take the place of their rulers, then they are called ‘rebels.’ These two must be rooted out according to the principles (li) of heaven.
王莽、曹操为汉臣，逆也；普六茹坚乃夷狄，吕后、武后乃妇人，五代八姓乃夷狄盗贼之徒，俱僭也，非天明命也。以正而得国，则篡之者逆也，如 逆莽、逆操篡汉之类是也；不以正而得国，则夺之者非逆也，汉取嬴政之国、唐取普六茹坚之国、大宋取柴宗训之国是也。
Wang Mang and Cao Cao were Han officials, and then were traitors. Puliuru Jian was an outlander, while Empress Lu and Empress Wu were wives. The eight families of the five dynasty period were all servants to bandits and outlanders. For this reason, all of them were usurpers, not holders of the clear mandate of Heaven. Those who usurp the throne from states that were founded righteously are traitors. Those like the traitorous Wang Mang and Cao Cao, usurpers of the Han, were of this sort. Those who take states who were not founded righteously are not traitors. Examples of this are when Han took the state of The First Qin Emperor, the Tang that of Liurupu Jian, and the Great Song that of Chai Zongxun [the last ruler of the Northern Zhou].
善乎僭唐李亶（僭谥明宗）露祷于天曰： 「臣本夷狄，愿天早生圣人，吊民伐罪，如汤武则可。」孔子曰：「武尽美矣，未尽善也。」汤武忧天下无君,伯夷忧后世无君，断之固有理，后世必藉汤武之事， 以长无君之恶。李觏曰：「汤武非圣人亦宜。」
How fitting was it then, that the usurper of the Tang Li Dan (who had the improper temple name of Mingzong) revealed in his prayer to Heaven that, “Your official is an outlander. We wish for Heaven to send forth a sage to succor the people and punish the tyrants, as you did with King Tang of the Shang and King Wu of the Zhou. Confucius said, ‘Wu was perfect in beauty but not perfectly good.’ King Tang and King Wu worried that there was no ruler under heaven, and Bo Yi worried that future ages would have no king. Bo Yi’s judgement was correct after all, future generations must have used the matters of Tang and Wu as a pretext and prolonged the horror of rulerlessness. As Li Gou noted, “We may say that Tang and Wu were not sages!”
圣人、正统、中国，本一也，今析而论之，实不得已。是故得天下者，未可以言中国；得中国者，未可以言正统；得 正统者，未可以言圣人。唯圣人始可以合天下、中国、正统而一之。子路问：「卫君待子为政，子将奚先？」子曰：「必也正名乎！名不正，言不顺，事不成，礼乐不兴，刑罚不中，民无所措手足。」大哉「正名」一语乎！其断古今 之史法乎！名既不正，何足以言正统与？
The sage, zhengtong, and the central kingdom (zhongguo) are all one (yi) at their foundation. We truly have no choice but to analyze and discuss this now. For this reason, when one obtains all-under-heaven, we cannot yet discuss the central kingdom (zhongguo). When one obtains the central kingdom (zhongguo), we cannot yet discuss zhengtong. Finally, when one obtains zhengtong, we cannot yet discuss sages. Only the sage can unite all-under-heaven, the central kingdom (zhongguo), and zhengtong. As the Analects say, “When Zi Lu asked, “When the lord of Wei awaited your advice about governance, what did you first discuss, Master?” Confucius said, “He must rectify names! If the names are not rectified, than discussions are not reasonable. Matters will not come to pass, the rites and music will not flourish, penal punishments will not fit their crimes, and the resources of the people will be lacking.” This discussion of the ‘rectification of names’ is great! It determined the practice of history both past and present! If the names are not rectified, how could one possible discuss zhengtong?
正统者，配天地、立人极，所以教天下以至正之道。彼不正，欲天下正者，未之有也，此其所以不得谓之正统。或者以正而 不统、统而不正之语，以论正统，及得地势之正者为正统，俱未尽善。古之人君有天下而不与，以天下为忧；后之人君执天下为己物，以天下为乐。夫以天下为忧， 则君子道行；以天下为乐，则小人道行。此古今治乱之由分也。治则天下如泰山之安，不可摇动；一或不然，朵颐神器者至矣。此天下不容长一统也，有天下者可不 敬欤？
One with zhengtong is the companion to heaven and earth, set above men. He teaches all-under-heaven the Way that is most correct. There has never been a case of a person who is not rectified wanting to rectify all-under-heaven. In this case, we cannot refer to it as zhengtong. Supposing there is one who is rectified, but has not unified or unified but not rectified, taking their position and authority as rectified (zheng) they are said to have zhengtong, yet this is not fully good. Rulers of antiquity possessed all-under-heaven yet took no joy in it. They instead worried for all-under-heaven. Later rulers had all-under-heaven and said it was their own possession. They took joy in all-under-heaven. To worry over all-under-heaven is to practice the way of the ruler. To take joy in all-under-heaven is to practice the way of the small-minded man. This is the reason for the division between governance and disorder in both antiquity and today. If governed, all-under-heaven is as stable as Mount Tai and it cannot be swayed. When a single thing is not so, then an ignoble slack-jawed emperor will come. This is why all-under-heaven is unable to be unified for long. Should we not then respect those who hold all-under-heaven?
….
There is a bit more to the text, but we have ended here.