On Zhengtong 正統論
By Ouyang Xiu (歐陽脩)
Translated by Devin Fitzgerald
Annotations and emendations by Maura Dykstra
Preface (序)
臣修頓首死罪言。伏見太宗皇帝時，嚐命薛居正等撰梁、唐、晉、漢、周事為《五代史》，凡一百五十篇，又命李昉等編次前世年號為一篇，藏之秘府。而昉等以梁為偽。梁為偽，則史不宜為帝紀，而亦無曰五代者，於理不安。今又司天所用崇天曆，承後唐，書天祐至十九年，而盡黜梁所建號。援之於古，惟張軌不用東晉太興而虛稱建興，非可以為後世法。蓋後唐務惡梁，而欲黜之，曆家不識古義，但用有司之傳，遂不復改。至於昉等，初非著書，第采次前世名號，以備有司之求，因舊之失，不專是正，乃與史官戾不相合。皆非是。
Your official Xiu bows his head to memorialize on matters which may cause him to be put to death: I humbly observe that during the reign of Taizong,** he ordered Xue Juzheng and others to compile the History of the Five Dynasties of the Liang, Tang, Jin, Han, and Zhou. It totaled one-hundred and fifty chapters. He also commanded Li Fang and others to compile and re-order all the reign periods of previous ages to store them under a single scheme in the archives. Li Fang et.al. took the Liang to be a false house, and given that it was false, thought it would be inappropriate for their history to have annals of emperors. Further, he was unsettled since this meant that there was no reason behind the ‘Five Dynasties.’ Today, the calendar used and venerated by the astronomy office, which was received from the later Tang, records that the Tianyou reign lasted until the 19th year and completely excludes the reigns of the Liang.
** Here referring to Emperor Taizong of the Tang (see the slides on the institutionalization of historiography in the Tang).
臣愚因以謂正統，王者所以一民而臨天下。三代用正朔，後世有建元之名。然自漢以來，學者多言三代正朔，而怪仲尼嚐修《尚書》、《春秋》，與其學徒論述堯、舜、三代間事甚詳，而於正朔尤大事，乃獨無明言，頗疑三代無有其事。及於《春秋》得「十月隕霜殺菽」，二月「無冰」，推其時氣，乃知周以建子為正，則三代固嚐改正朔。
Your ignorant official holds that zhengtong is when a king united the people and presides over All Under Heaven. In the three ages of antiquity, they began new calendars on the new year after succession, but in later ages, they renamed the period with a reign title.** Thus, from the Han on, scholars have often talked of the about the new calendars of the three ages, yet they have criticized Confucius and his editing of the Book of Shang and the Spring and Autumn Annals, as well as his students, for discussing much about Yao, Shun, and the three ages in detail, without saying anything clearly about the great matter of the new calendars on the new year. Some even doubt whether or not the ages had any calendars. In The Spring and Autumn Annals, we find “During the tenth month frost fell and killed the sprouts.” During the second month “there was no ice.” From this we can see the weather and know that the Zhou established the ruler on the first month, and so we know that the three ages had the first month of the year.
** On the link between the legitimacy of a reign and the calendrical system, see the beginning of the Gongyang commentary of the Spring and Autumn Annals
而仲尼曰行夏之時，又知聖人雖不明道正朔之事，其意蓋非商、周之為，雲其興也，新民耳目，不務純以德，而更易虛名，至使四時與天不合，不若夏時之正也。及秦又以十月為正。漢始稍分後元、中元，至於建元，遂名年以為號。由是而後，直以建元之號加於天下而已，所以同萬國而一民也。而後世推次，以為王者相繼之統。若夫上不戾於天，下可加於人，則名年建元，便於三代之改歲。然而後世僭亂假窮者多，則名號紛雜，不知所從，於是正閏真偽之論作，而是非多失其中焉。
Further, Confucius saying that we must “Follow the seasons of the Xia…” lets us know that even if the sages were not clear on the matter of the new year enthronement, the notions were not just clouds dreamed up by the Shang and Zhou. To renew the knowledge of the people, labor should not only be in virtue, but should also be in changing empty names. If there comes a time when the four seasons do not follow Heaven, then nothing was better than the correction to the calendars during Xia. Later, when it came to added in a human element, then the years were named according to reigns, making it convenient to change dates during the three age. In later periods, when there was chaos, usurpations, and extreme falsehood, then the names multiplied and were confusing. Not know which to follow, the theory of the proper and stand-in and the true and spurious was made. Fact and fiction was often lost therein.
然堯、舜、三代之一天下也，不待論說而明。自秦昭襄訖周顯德千有餘年，治亂之跡不可不辨，而前世論者靡有定說。伏惟大宋之興，統一天下，與堯、舜、三代無異。臣故曰不待論說而明。謹采秦以來訖於顯德終始興廢之跡，作《正統論》。臣愚不足以知，願下學者考定其是非而折中焉。
Thus, when Yao, Shun, and the three ages had unified All Under Heaven, none waited for theories or explanations and it was clear. After King Zhaoxiang of the Qin through the thousand or more years of the later Zhou Xiande reign(954-960), the evidence of order and chaos has become difficult to distinguish. The theories of those in prior ages did not have any fixed explanations. Only with the rise of our Great Song, their unification of All Under Heaven, have we come to an age no different from that of Yao, Shun, and the three ages. Your officials thus says, we will not wait for theories and and explanations for it to be clear. I have respectfully selected evidence from the beginning and end of dynasties from between the Qin to the Xiande reign of the later Zhou and composed The Theory of Zhengtong. Your official is ignorant and does not know much. I hope later scholars will investigate to determine its fact and fiction and where it is twisted within.
On Zhengtong – Part One (正統論上)
《傳》曰「君子大居正」，又曰「王者大一統」。正者，所以正天下之不正也；統者，所以合天下之不一也。由不正與不一，然後正統之論作。
The Zuozhuan says, “The gentleman resides in great rectification (zheng).” It also says, “The King is great in his unification (tong).” One who rectifies rectifies that which is incorrect in the under heaven. One who unifies brings together the parts of the under heaven that are not unified. Owing to a lack of rectification and unification, the theory of zhengtong was made.
堯、舜之相傳，三代之相代，或以至公，或以大義，皆得天下之正，合天下於一，是以君子不論也，其帝王之理得而始終之分明故也。及後世之亂，僭偽興而盜竊作，由是有居其正而不能合天下於一者，周平王之有吳、徐是也；有合天下於一而不得居其正者，前世謂秦為閏是也。由是正統之論興焉。
The transmission from Yao to Shun and from the dynasties of the three periods of antiquity, which “extended impartiality to the utmost” and possessed “great righteousness,” both rectified (zheng) and unified (tong) the under heaven as one. For this reason, gentlemen did not discuss [the legitimacy, or zhengtong, of the reign]. This was because the emperors and kings possessed true principles and were clear on reasons from start to finish.
Later ages descended into chaos, with false usurpers arising and banditry flourishing. Thus, there were some who presided in rectification (zheng) but were unable to bring together (he) all-under-heaven. This was just like the case of King Ping of Zhou and Wu and Xu. There are also those that brought together (he) all-under-heaven but did not dwell in rectification. The Qin has been referred to in this was by prior generations. This is where the theories of zhengtong began.
自漢而下，至於西晉，又推而下之，為宋、齊、梁、陳。自唐而上，至於後魏，又推而上之，則為夷狄。其帝王之理舛，而始終之際不明，由是學者疑焉，而是非又多不公。自周之亡迄於顯德，實千有二百一十六年之間，或理或亂，或取或傳，或分或合，其理不能一概。大抵其可疑之際有三：周、秦之際也，東晉、後魏之際也，五代之際也。秦親得周而一天下，其跡無異禹、湯，而論者黜之，其可疑者一也。以東晉承西晉則無終，以隋承後魏則無始，其可疑者二也。五代之所以得國者雖異，然同歸於賊亂也，而前世議者獨以梁為偽，其可疑者三也。
After the Han came the Western Jin, and then the [Zhou] Song，Qi, Liang, and Chen.** Before the Tang, there was the Later Wei, before which there were only Di outlanders.*** Their rulers had flawed principles (li), and even their origins and their endings are not clear. For this reason, scholars have doubts and there is even no consensus over fact and fiction. From the fall of the later Zhou in the Xiande reign, there had been 1,116 years. Sometimes there was principle, sometimes chaos. Sometimes the realm was taken, other times it was passed down. Sometimes it was divided, and sometimes it was brought together (he). The is not single principle (li) able to be applied to them all.
In total, there are three transitions that can be doubted. The first is the one between the Zhou and the Qin. The second is the one between the Eastern Jin and the Later Wei, and the third are those during the Five Dynasties period. Qin took the Zhou and made as one (yi)**** all-under-heaven. This sign is no different from the making-as-one (yi)**** of Yu or Tang Yao, yet theories dismiss it, so it is one of those that can be doubted. Since the transfer from the Eastern Jin to the Western Jin has no end, and because the beginnings of the Sui taking over from the Later Wei has no beginning, it is the second one which can be doubted. During the period of the Five Dynasties, even though those who obtained the state differ, they all resulted in the chaos of banditry. Yet during earlier periods, the opinion was that only the Liang was false, and so we find that this can be doubted.
** This list contains the Jin as the successor of the Han (skipping over the contenders during the Three Kingdoms Period), and then the succession of Southern Dynasties after the Jin was pushed out of the north.
*** This is a reference to the northern courts in the Northern and Southern Dynasties period which, here, Ouyang Xiu declines to list by name (being not qualified as legitimate dynasties, presumably).
**** Here, interestingly, the second character yi (literally meaning “one”) appears in the place of tong (the verb “to unify”).
夫論者何？為疑者設也。堯、舜、三代之始終，較然著乎萬世而不疑，固不待論而明也。後世之有天下者，帝王之理或舛，而始終之際不明，則不可以不疑。故曰由不正與不一，然後正統之論作也。
What is a theory**? It is something set down when there is doubt. The beginning and end of the periods of Yao, Shun, and the three dynasties are clear to all ages and so cannot be doubted. Thus, you cannot hold on to a theory to clarify them. In later periods, among those who possessed all-under-heaven, as a result of the lack of imperial or kingly principle (li) of some, it is often not clear where they begin or end. Thus, there cannot be no doubt about them. For this reason we say that “when they were not rectified (zheng) or made as one (yi), the theory of zhentong was made.”
** The word “theory (lun)” used here is found in the title to the work of Shi Jie which was translated as “On China (Zhongguo lun).” It may have been more literally rendered as “On the Theory of the Central Kingdom.” Similarly, the title of this piece (which contains the same word) could have been translated “The Theory of Zhengtong” or, just as easily, “Disputations on Zhengtong.” A simpler title was merely chosen to match current conventions in the translation of titles.
然而論者眾矣，其是非予奪，所持者各異，使後世莫知夫所從者，何哉？蓋於其可疑之際，又挾自私之心，而溺。於非聖之學也。
But now there are many theories. What some pose as fact, others take as falsehood. Each one holds up something different, and so people in later ages have not known which to follow. Why is this? It is because of the questionable nature of each transition, and as every other clings to their own motivations, they are mired in learning that is not of the sages.
自西晉之滅，而南為東晉、宋、齊、梁、陳，北為後魏、北齊、後周、隋。私東晉者曰：隋得陳，然後天下一。則推其統曰：晉、宋、齊、梁、陳、隋。私後魏者曰：統必有所受。則推其統曰：唐受之隋，隋受之後周，後周受之後魏。至其甚相戾也，則為《南史》者，詆北曰虜；為《北史》者，詆南曰夷。此自私之偏說也。
After the Western Jin was destroyed and it moved south to become the Eastern Jin, it was followed by the Song, Qi, Liang, and Chen, and in the north by the Later Wei, Northern Qi, Later Zhou, and the Sui. Those with interest in the Eastern Jin’s [legacy] said that after the Sui conquered Chen, all-under-heaven was unified. It we extrapolate from this idea of unity (tong), [then the states that had it were] the Jing, Song, Qi, Liang, Chen, and Sui. Those with interest in the Later Wei’s [legacy] said, unity (tong) must be passed on. It we extrapolate from this idea of unity (tong) then the Tang received it from the Sui, the Sui from the Later Zhou, and the Later Zhou from the Later Wei. This cacophonous disagreement is like a pack of dogs barking at each other. So, those who wrote the Southern History derided the northerners as Tartars and those who wrote the Northern Histories insulted southerners as outlanders. This is them selfishly clinging to their own subjective views in discourse.
自古王者之興，必有盛德以受天命，或其功澤被於生民，或累世積漸而成王業，豈偏名於一德哉？至於湯、武之起，所以救弊拯民，蓋有不得已者，而曰五行之運有休王，一以彼衰，一以此勝，此曆官、術家之事。
Since antiquity, the rise of kings has been due to receiving the mandate of Heaven as a result of overflowing virtue. Some accrued an ocean of merit by causing the people to flourish, while others established their kingly enterprise through generations of gradually accumulating stature. How could it all be because of one single (yi) virtue? King Tang and King Wu rose after rescuing the realm from corruption and saving the people, [but their circumstances] left them no choice in the matter. When the five phases transition and there is an uncrowned king, one will decline and the other will conquer. This is a matter for the diviners and astronomers.
而謂帝王之興必乘五運者，繆妄之說也，不知其出於何人。蓋自孔子歿，周益衰亂，先王之道不明，而人人異學，肆其怪奇放蕩之說。後之學者，不能卓然奮力而誅絕之，反從而附益其說，以相結固。故自秦推五勝以水德自名，由漢以來，有國者未始不由於此說。此所謂溺於非聖之學也。
However, the discourse that the rise of rulers is dependent on the transition of the five cycles is mistaken, and it is not known who started it. After the death of Confucius, the Zhou went into decline and chaos. The way of former kings was not clear, and each person studied a different area, hanging out their strange and unconventional discourses for all to see. Scholars of later ages were unable to make outstanding enough contributions to and put an end to [this profusion of] ideas. On the contrary, they followed them and added their discourses to the earlier ones, binding them together to support each other. For this reason, after the Qin pushed forward the notion that their dynasty succeeded owing to ‘the virtue of water,’ from the Han on, all of those with states did not depart this discourse. This is how they were all lost in studies that did not belong to the sages.
惟天下之至公大義，可以祛人之疑，而使人不得遂其私。夫心無所私，疑得其決，則是非之異論息而正統明。所謂非聖人之說者，可置而勿論也。
It is only when all-under-heaven has attained utmost impartiality and fairness that a complete justice is accomplished, and only under these circumstances that all sources of doubt may be eliminated. Only then can each person be made to turn away from selfish pursuits. To eliminate the selfish from the heart-mind. To cut off the origin of doubts. To distinguish absolutely between true and false. These are what it is to illuminate zhengtong. This is what is meant in saying that even without the coming from the mouths of the sages, a thing may be accepted without further disputation (lun).
On Zhengtong – Part Two (正統論下)
凡為正統之論者，皆欲相承而不絕，至其斷而不屬，則猥以假人而續之，是以其論曲而不通也。
As for those who dispute zhengtong, all desire succession without interruptions. When there is an interruption with no successor, then they dare to have a dummy continue it. For this reason, their theories are distorted and not coherent.
夫居天下之正，合天下於一，斯正統矣，堯、舜、夏、商、周、秦、漢、唐是也。始雖不得其正，卒能合天下於一，夫一天下而居正，則是天下之君矣，斯謂之正統可矣，晉、隋是也。
One who abides in the rectification (zheng) of all-under-heaven and joins (he) it together as one (yi) then has zhengtong. Yao, Shun, the Xia, Shang, Zhou, Qin, Han, and Tang were like this. Then there were those who, although they were not rectified (zheng) from the beginning, did accomplish a joining (he) of all-under-heaven as one (yi). When all-under-heaven was unified (yi) and only after did it abidide in rectification (zheng), then they were the lords of all-under-heaven. This can be called zhengtong, and is like that of the Jin and Sui.
天下大亂，其上無君，僭竊並興，正統無屬。當是之時，奮然而起，並爭乎天下，有功者強，有德者王，威澤皆被於生民，號令皆加乎當世。幸而以大並小，以強兼弱，遂合天下於一，則大且強者謂之正統，猶有說焉。不幸而兩立不能相並，考其跡則皆正，較其義則均焉，則正統者將安予奮乎？東晉、後魏是也。
When all-under-heaven was in great chaos and there was no lord above, and when usurpers and thieves arose in tandem, that is when there was no heir to zhengtong. At that time, people arose with great struggle and contended for all-under-heaven. Those who succeeded were the strong, and those with virtue were kings. Their might extended to inundate the people, and their orders were made known to the age. The fortunate used their greatness to join the lesser and their strength to combine with the weak, and so they brought together (he) all-under-heaven as one (yi). If they were great and strong, it was called zhengtong, and there are discourses on it. In unfortunate times, two rulers have existed, and each was unable to subsume the other. If we examine them and find evidence that they were both rectified and that both were equal in righteousness, then upon whom do we bestow zhengtong? The Eastern Jin and the Later Wei are cases like this.
其或終始不得其正，又不能合天下於一，則可謂之正統乎？魏及五代是也。然則有不幸而丁其時，則正統有時而絕也。故正統之序，上自堯、舜，曆夏、商、周、秦、漢而絕，晉得之而又絕，隋、唐得之而又絕，自堯、舜以來，三絕而復續。惟有絕而有續，然後是非公予奪當而正統明。
There are also instances of those who, from beginning to end, never rectify (zheng) or bring together (he) all-under-heaven as one (yi). Can this be called zhengtong? The end of the period of the Five Dynasties was like this. Thus, in an age mired by misfortune, zhengtong sometime ends. For this reason, the order of zhengtong proceeds from Yao, Shu, the Xia, Shang, Zhou, Qin, and Han and then ends. The Jin obtained it and then it ended. The Sui and Tang obtained it, but it ended again. Since Yao and Sun, it has ended three times only to continue later. If it ends it will continue, and after that fact and fiction are collectively decided and then zhengtong is made clear.
然諸儒之論，至於秦及東晉、後魏、五代之際，其說多不同。其惡秦而黜之以為閏者誰乎？是漢人之私論，溺於非聖曲學之說者也。其說有三，不過曰滅棄禮樂，用法嚴苛，與其興也不當五德之運而已。五德之說，可置而勿論。其二者特始皇帝之事爾，然未原秦之本末也。
The theories of the learned scholars often disagree on how to evaluate [the transitions] from the Qin to the Eastern Jin, Later Wei, and the Five dynasties period. Who was it that disliked the Qin and so condemned it as a ‘intermediary’ dynasty? It was a private theory by someone from the Han who had been muddled in the twisted discourses of un-sagely learning. They had three explanations. One was that they destroyed and abandoned the rites and music, one that they were too severe in laws, and the last was that their rise do not accord to the cycle of the five virtues. The discourse of the five virtues could be posited without discussions, but the other two were merely matters of The First Qin Emperor, and did not describefully the beginning and end of the Qin house.
昔者堯傳於舜，舜傳於禹。夏之衰也，湯代之王；商之衰也，周代之王；周之衰也，秦代之王。其興也，或以德，或以功，大抵皆乘其弊而代之。初，夏世衰而桀為昏暴，湯救其亂而起，稍治諸侯而誅之，其《書》曰「湯征自葛」是也。其後卒以攻桀而滅夏。及商世衰而紂為昏暴，周之文、武救其亂而起，亦治諸侯而誅之，其《詩》所謂「崇」、「密」是也。其後卒攻紂而滅商。推秦之興，其功德固有優劣，而其跡豈有異乎？
It the past, Yao passed the throne to Shun, Sun passed it to Yu. When the Xia went into decline, King Tang took over as king. When the Shang went into decline, King Zhou took over as King. When the Zhou went into decline, the Qin took over as king. Some these kings arose because of virtue. Others, their accomplishments. Generally, they rode in on some failing and succeeded the previous regime. First, the Xia were in decline and then King Jie was muddled and violent. Tang saved the people from chaos and arose. He eliminated some of the nobles and executed them. So, the Book of Documents said, “Tang began the punishments with Ge.” After this, his troops attacked Jie and destroyed the Xia. Coming to the decline of the Shang, King Zhou** was muddled and violent. Wen and Wu of the Zhou saved the people from chaos is arose. They eliminated some of the nobles and executed them. In the Book of Odes, this is what it means by ‘Chong’ and ‘Mi.’ After this, their soldiers attacked King Zhou and eliminated the Shang. Coming to the rise of the Qin, while their achievements and merit had strengths and faults, so how could the evidence be different?
** To the puzzlement of many who study the history of Early China for the first time, the last king of the Shang dynasty was named King Zhou. And he was conquered by the house of Zhou, which later went on to establish the Zhou dynasty. This is not a problem in the original Chinese, as the characters for the name of the last king and the name of the succeeding dynasty are entirely distinct from one another, but it is our misfortune that they are transliterated in the same way as one another.
秦之《紀》曰：其先大業，出於顓頊之苗裔。至孫伯翳，佐禹治水有功，唐、虞之間賜姓嬴氏。及非子為周養馬有功，秦仲始為命大夫。而襄公與立平王，遂受岐、豐之賜。當是之時，周衰固已久矣，亂始於穆王，而繼以厲、幽之禍，平王東遷，遂同列國。
The Annals of the Qin says [of its own rise]: “The great enterprise of our ancestors came from their descent from Zhuanxu. Coming to Sun Boyi, who earned merit assisting Yu to control the waters, during the time of Yao and Shun, they were awarded the surname ‘Ying.’ Feizi earned success raising horses for the Zhou, and Qinzhong was then made a lord. During the reign of Duke Xiang and King Liping, they were given Qi and Feng as feifs. At that time, the Zhou had been in decline for some time, with the chaos beginning during the rule of King Mu. After the disasters of Li and You, Ping Wang moved east and they became one of the various state.
而齊、晉大侯，魯、衛同姓，擅相攻伐，共起而弱周，非獨秦之暴也。秦於是時，既平犬夷，因取周所賜岐、豐之地。而繆公以來，始東侵晉，地至於河，盡滅諸戎，拓國千里。其後關東諸侯強僭者日益多，周之國地日益蹙，至無復天子之製，特其號在爾。
“Moreover, the great Marquises of Qi, Jin, Lu, and Wei shared a surname, and treacherously attacked one another. Their collective rebellion weakened the Zhou, so it was not only the violence of the Qin alone [that destroyed them]. At that time, Qin was quelling the Wolf Barbarians, because they took the territories of Qi and Feng, which the Zhou had bequeathed. After Duke Miao, Qin began attacking the Jin to their east, and their land extended to the Yellow River. Qin then eliminated all of the upland outlanders, and extended the state by a thousand li. After this the marquises east of the pass began asserting their rights to the throne in ever-increasing numbers. The territory of the Zhou was pressed upon every day, until it came to there being no institution of the son of Heaven. Only the title remained, and that was all.
秦昭襄王五十二年，周之君臣稽首自歸於秦。至其後世，遂滅諸侯而一天下。
King Zhaoxiang of the Qin ruled for fifty two years. All of the lords and vassals of the Zhou bowed their heads and submitted to the Qin. His descendents then eliminated the all of the marquis and made all-under-heaven as one (yi).”
此其本末之跡也。其德雖不足，而其功力尚不優於魏、晉乎？始秦之興，務以力勝。至於始皇，遂悖棄先王之典禮，又自推水德，益任法而少恩，其制度文為，皆非古而自是，此其所以見黜也。夫始皇之不德，不過如桀、紂，桀、紂不廢夏、商之統，則始皇未可廢秦也。
This is the outline of the events, and although the Qin’s virtue was lacking, was not their merit no less than that of the Wei or Jin? In the beginning of the Qin, they labored to be victorious through strength. Coming to The First Qin Emperor, they had abandoned and gone against the institutions and rites of earlier kings. Saying this came from their “Water Virtue,” they employed legalism and devalued compassion. They regulated literature and action in ways unknown to antiquity, and for this reason people have considered them base and foul. But the lack of virtue in The First Emperor of Qin is no worse than that of Jie and Zhou. Zhou did not disrupt the transmission (tong) between the Xia and Shang, and so The First Emperor of Qin should not be said to have done so for the Qin.
其私東晉之論者曰：周遷而東，天下遂不能一。然仲尼作《春秋》，區區於尊周而黜吳、楚者，豈非以其正統之所在乎？晉遷而東，與周無異，而今黜之，何哉？曰：是有說焉，較其德與跡而然耳。周之始興，其來也遠。當其盛也，規方天下為大小之國，眾建諸侯，以維王室，定其名分，使傳子孫而守之，以為萬世之計。及厲王之亂，周室無君者十四年，而天下諸侯不敢僥幸而窺周。於此然後見周德之深，而文、武、周公之作，真聖人之業也。況平王之遷，國地雖蹙，然周德之在人者未厭，而法製之臨人者未移。平王以子繼父，自西而東，不出王畿之內。則正統之在周也，推其德與跡可以不疑。
Those with disparaging theories of the Eastern Jin say that when the Zhou moved east, all-under-heaven was then not able to be made one (yi). But when Confucius wrote the Spring and Autumn Annals, which was sincere in its veneration of the Zhou and its denigration of Wu and Chu, for had it not been, where could it have had zhengtong reside? When the Jin moved east, they were no different than the Zhou. So, why is it that we denigrate them today? I say, there is an explanation here. When we compare the virtue of the [Zhou and Jin] with the evidence then it is apparent.
The Zhou began to flourish in the distant past. When it was flourishing, all-under-heaven had been divided into big and small states, within which feudal princes were established in order to preserve the royal house. Their titles had been fixed and divided, and they were passed through their descendents for preservation as the plan for all generations. Then, it came to the chaos of King Li, and the Zhou house was ruler-less for fourteen years. It was then that the princes of all-under-heaven spinelessly hoped for good fortune and pried into the Zhou. With this, they later saw the depth of Zhou virtue and the true sagely accomplishments of Wen, Wu, and the Duke of Zhou (i.e. the world realized it was a miraculous thing that the Zhou had created order for so long.) Moreover, after King Ping moved the capital, even though the lands of the state were being pressed upon, the virtues of the Zhou within people were not despised, and the rules that people presented did not change. King Ping succeed the father with the son, and during the movement from east to west, they did not leave the kingly domain. Thus it is the zhengtong was with the Zhou, and when we examine their virtue and the evidence we cannot doubt this.
夫晉之為晉與乎周之為周也異矣。其德法之維天下者，非有萬世之計、聖人之業也，直以其受魏之禪而合天下於一，推較其跡，可以曰正而統耳。自惠帝之亂，至於湣、懷之間，晉如線爾，惟嗣君繼世，推其跡曰正焉可也。建興之亡，晉於是而絕矣。
However, the Jin being the Jin differs from the Zhou being the Zhou. Their laws of virtue which were to support all-under-heaven were not planned to last a myriad ages and were not the accomplishments of sages. They simply took the throne from the Wei, and so brought together (he) all-under-heaven as one (yi). If we compare and examine the evidence, we can still say they had zheng and tong. After the disorder of Emperor Hui, it came to the reigns of Min and Huai. The Jin was like a connected thread, with their princes continuing in succeeding ages. If we examine this evidence, we can say that they were zheng. But the loss of emperor Jianxing was the end of the Jin.
夫周之東也，以周而東。晉之南也，豈復以晉而南乎？自湣帝死賊庭，琅邪起江表，位非嗣君，正非繼世，徒以晉之臣子，有不忘晉之心，發於忠義而功不就，可為傷已！
When the Zhou went east, it was still the Zhou, but in the east. When the Jin went south, how could it again become the Jin in the south? Emperor Min [Jianxing] died in the bandit’s court. Prince Lanye rose in the south, but his position was not as an inheriting ruler, so his was not proper continuity in descent. To no avail, he used the vassals of Jin who had not forgotten the state in their heart. Yet their virtue and righteousness did not give them victory. Was this not tragic?
若因而遂竊正統之號，其可得乎？《春秋》之說「君弒而賊不討」，則以為無臣子也。使晉之臣子遭乎聖人，適當《春秋》之誅，況欲幹天下之統哉？若乃國已滅矣，以宗室子自立於一方，卒不能復天下於一，則晉之琅邪，與夫後漢之劉備、五代漢之劉崇何異？備與崇未嚐為正統，則東晉可知焉耳。
If we therefore take this to be zhengtong, can we say that they had it? In the Spring and Autumn Annals it is said, “If the lord is assassinated, then the bandits will not be punished [by the ministers],” which is to say there were no ministers. If the ministers of Jin had met with a sage, then they would have been like those ministers from the Spring and Autumn Annals assassinating [their lord]. Moreover, would that have desired to unify (tong) all-under-heaven. If the state has already been destroyed, and a royal relative establishes themselves in one area, then they are simply not able to make all-under-heaven one (yi) again. This is the case of Langye of the Jin. Was he any different from Liu Bei** of the later Han or Liu Chong of the five dynasties? No one has claimed Liu Bei or Liu Chong had zhengtong, so we know how the case of the eastern Jin should be decided.
** Relative of the imperial house of the Han who founded the Shu dynasty in the period of the Three Kingdoms.
其私後魏之論者曰：魏之興也，其來甚遠。自昭成建國改元，承天下衰弊，得奮其力，並爭乎中國。七世至於孝文，而去夷即華，易姓建都，遂定天下之亂，然後修禮樂、興制度而文之。考其漸積之基，其道德雖不及於三代，而其為功，何異王者之興？今特以其不能並晉、宋之一方，以小不備而黜其大功，不得承百王之統者何哉？
Those with disparaging theories of the Later Wei** say: the rise of the Wei was in the distant past. After emperor Zhaocheng established the state and changed the calendar, they took advantage of the decline of all-under-heaven, seized upon its strengths, and called themselves “the Middle Kingdom (zhongguo)”. After seven generations, Xiaowen dismissed outlanders and became ‘Hua’(Chinese). He changed his surname and established a capital, bringing stability to the chaos of all-under-heaven. He then put the rites and music into practice, giving rise to institutions which he then wrote down. Examining the basis for their gradual growth, we see that although his virtue did not reach the level of the three ages, his accomplishments were no different from those of a king coming into ascension. Today we take it that they are not to be placed next to the Jin and Song. Saying they were small and unprepared, we denigrate their achievements. Why is it we say that the Wei cannot be placed in the line of unity (tong) of Kings?
** The Later Wei was a dynasty established by the northern Tuoba tribes from outside of China
曰：質諸聖人而不疑也。今為魏說者，不過曰功多而國強耳。此聖人有所不與也。春秋之時，齊桓、晉文可謂有功矣。吳、楚之僭，迭強於諸侯矣。聖人於《春秋》所尊者周也。然則功與強，聖人有所不取也。論者又曰：秦起夷狄，以能滅周而一天下，遂進之。魏亦夷狄，以不能滅晉、宋而見黜。是則因其成敗而毀譽之，豈至公之篤論乎？
Someone could say, “If we test the sages, then there can be no doubt. Today, discussions of the Wei only purport that it had accomplishments and a strong state. This is not comparable to the sages. During the Spring and Autumn Period, King Huan of Qin and Wen of Jin can be said to have had accomplishments as well [in spite of never having become rulers of the realm, and remaining only the lords of their own kingdoms]. Wu and Chu usurped and were often stronger than the other states. The sages in The Spring and Autumn Annals revered the Zhou. Thus, even if [the rulers of the kingdoms under the Zhou] had accomplishments and strength, the sages would not have raised them up.” Those disputing [the way of zhengtong] also say, “The Qin arose from outlanders, and they were able to destroy the Zhou, unify all-under-heaven, and so enter [into the line of succession.] The Wei were outlanders too, but they could not destroy the Jin and Song, and so must be dismissed.” In other words, those who accomplish their rule are raised up, while those who fail [to dominate over all] are considered failures. Is this truly what it means to “extend impartiality to the utmost”**?
** Refer to this phrase in Part One, where it refers to the virtues of the sage kings.
曰：是不然也，各於其黨而已。周、秦之所以興者，其說固已詳之矣。當魏之興也，劉淵以匈奴，慕容以鮮卑，苻生以氐，弋仲以羌，赫連、禿發、石勒、季龍之徒，皆四夷之雄者也。其力不足者弱，有餘者強，其最強者苻堅。當堅之時，自晉而外，天下莫不為秦，休兵革，興學校，庶幾刑政之方。不幸未幾而敗亂，其又強者曰魏。自江而北，天下皆為魏矣，幸而傳數世而後亂。以是而言，魏者才優於苻堅而已，豈能幹正統乎？
I say that it is not so. Each of these arguments has a party. The reasons for the rise of the Zhou and Qin has been detailed in theories. As for the Wei’s rise, Liu Yuan of the Xiongnu, the Murong clan of the Xianbei, Fusheng of the Di, Yizhong of the Qiang, and the followers of Jilong – Helian, Tufa, and Shile – were all heroes of the outlanders. With insufficient strength, some were weak, with more strength, some were strong. The strongest of them was Fu Jian. During the time of Jian, outside of the Jin, no regions of all-under-heaven did not belong to the [later] Qin. He put arms to rest, erected schools, and even instituted methods of penal governance. Unfortunately, after not long there was defeat and chaos, and the strongest became the Wei. From the Yangtze north, all-under-heaven was the Wei’s. But, after a few generations of fortune, they sank into chaos. If we speak based on this, then we see the the Wei’s talents surpassed Fu Jian and nothing more grand than this. How can this be tantamount to zhengtong?
五代之得國者，皆賊亂之君也。而獨偽梁而黜之者，因惡梁者之私論也。唐自僖、昭以來，不能製命於四海，而方鎮之兵作。已而小者並於大，弱者服於強。其尤強者，朱氏以梁，李氏以晉，共起而窺唐，而梁先得之。李氏因之借名討賊，以與梁爭中國，而卒得之，其勢不得不以梁為偽也。而繼其後者，遂因之，使梁獨被此名也。
Those who obtained courts during the five ages were all lords of chaotic bandits. Yet, only the “false” Liang is dismissed, due to the selfish theories of those who hated the Liang. After Emperor Xi and Zhao of the Tang (877-904), they were not able to make edicts for the realm, and so used the oppression of troops to do it. It was already the case that the small joined with the large and the weak submitted to the strong. The strongest of them were the Zhu family, in Liang, and the Li family in Jin. They rose together with glances at the Tang, and the Liang obtained it first. The Li family then used the Tang name to suppress the bandits, and fought together over the central kingdom with the Liang until they finally obtained it. In those circumstances, they could not but proclaim the Liang as false. Those who followed them then made it so only the Liang was named as “false.”
夫梁固不得為正統，而唐、晉、漢、周何以得之？今皆黜之。而論者猶以漢為疑，以謂契丹滅晉，天下無君，而漢起太原，徐驅而入汴，與梁、唐、晉、周其跡異矣，而今乃一概，可乎？
If the Liang was not in possession of zhengtong, then how did the Tang, Jin, Han, and Zhou obtain it? Now, we should expurgate them all from the list. And other theorists then take the Later Han as doubt worthy. They say the Qitan destroyed the Jin, and all-under-heaven was ruler-less. The Han rose up in Taiyuan and drove south to Kaifeng, and so they differ from the Liang, Tang, Jin, and Zhou. They wonder if we can take them together with the others.
曰：較其心跡，小異而大同爾。且劉知遠，晉之大臣也。方晉有契丹之亂也，竭其力以救難，力所不勝而不能存晉，出於無可奈何，則可以少異乎四國矣。漢獨不然，自契丹與晉戰者三年矣，漢獨高拱而視之，如齊人之視越人也，卒幸其敗亡而取之。及契丹之北也，以中國委之許王從益而去。從益之勢，雖不能存晉，然使忠於晉者得而奉之，可以冀於有為也。漢乃殺之而後入。以是而較其心跡，其異於四國者幾何？矧皆未嚐合天下於一也。其於正統，絕之何疑。
If we compare the essence of this evidence, then we see that the differences between each of them are minor and in fact at the largest level of generality they are mostly the same.…. So what is the difference bewteen these four kingdoms? For they all alike failed to merge (he) all-under-heaven as one (yi). Thus, when it comes to zhengtong, doubts may be extinguished.