And our misunderstanding of these two concepts goes far beyond this. This paper tries to distinguish their similarities and differences, and investigate their origins, in order to provide dinner for readers.
First, "Zheng Shuo": From calendar concept to etiquette culture
"Zhengshuo" was originally a calendar concept, which is the first month and the new moon is the first day. The so-called "Li Xia Yin Jian, Li Yin Chou, Li Zhou Chou Zi", the first month of Xia, Shang and Zhou Dynasties-it is said that it was probably compiled by Han Confucianism-is different, which is equivalent to January, December and November of today's lunar calendar. Because according to the ram school, "the king must be appointed king." Kings must correct the new moon, change colors, make rituals and music, and rule the world. The new moon is a sign of "resignation". "
However, after the Han Dynasty, it was rarely done. Generally, only the first year is changed, that is, the year number is changed without correcting the month, with a few exceptions such as Wei Mingdi, Wu Zetian and Tang Suzong. Therefore, "Zheng Shuo" often refers to the year number, and "Jian Zheng Shuo" is basically synonymous with "Jian is the emperor". Preface to the official yuan GUI;
Ten places with six countries are all oversized, all made of crescent moons, or lords. ...
"Jade pot flower green" Volume 9:
Guangling Yang, God bless Wuyin, when Jiang and Huai have no owners, choose 30 counties, build their own Zhengshuo, and create.
And "calling (using/serving/acting/honoring) a new moon" means using the year number of another regime, which is a manifestation of its submission. The Book of Jin Geography;
At that time, the Central Plains disappeared, Yuan Di moved to Jiangzuo, and the track was controlled by Hexi, so it was called Jinzhengshuo, because it was very cold before.
The years since the establishment of inflammation record volume 23:
Zong Zong, the deputy commander-in-chief, said, "I would like to honor the title and compete with the vassals.
"Awarding the new moon" is an important means to educate the four foreigners. Liu Zhuan, an old Tang book:
Minister Yu Zhou asked for a calendar, and seven temples were taboo. People blamed it and replied, "I'm going to level the three seas and declare the country a new moon, so that the customs can be observed."
Weekly Consultation Records in Special Fields Volume 7:
In the first year of Xuande, pedestrian Huang Yuanchang named Zhengshuo as the country.
In addition, according to the principle of "save the waste and die", the descendants of the former dynasty will be allowed to keep their original records in the fief. The reflection of Shu Wei Wendy Ji:
In November of the first year of Huang Chu, every household in Shanyang, Hanoi, took Emperor Gaozu as Shanyang's use, performed the official ceremony of Han Dynasty, and offered sacrifices to the suburbs with the gift of the son of heaven. The letter said that it was not a vassal, but that Kyoto had something to do with the ancestral temple.
In addition, "truth" often refers to "clothes color", which refers to the whole etiquette culture and legal system. Biography of Han Han Anguo;
Since the heyday of the Three Dynasties, Emperor Yidi has no affection for Zhengshuo, and he can't control it unless he is threatened.
South Shu Qi Xiang Ruizhi:
I won four medals ... I want to dedicate them to God. After reading the article, I secretly said, "Today's clothes are in the right place, in Qi."
At the same time, this is also the favorite meaning of some history lovers today. After all, the year number can't be rebuilt, but the clothing can be resurrected. Hanfu Group also participated in the debate about "Yuan Qing is unorthodox" to a great extent, so I quite doubt that "Zheng Shuo" was mistaken for "orthodoxy" in this process.
Second, orthodoxy: inheritance or merger?
The word orthodoxy is still commonly used in modern Chinese, which is not difficult to understand: correct orthodoxy and traditional orthodoxy. "Politics" is used to modify "unification", which means "inheritance" and can be the unification of dynasties, families, schools, religions and political parties. The so-called "lineage", "orthodoxy" and "legalism" all mean this.
But when it comes to dynasties, some people want to abandon the "inheritance" in the sense of time and interpret "unity" as "unity" and "merger" in the sense of space, which is really intriguing. Then we might as well trace back to the source and look at the evolution of the meaning of the word "unification"
The picture above shows the character "Tong" of Xiao Zhuan, with the character "Tie" beside it on the left, indicating that it is related to silk, and the process of reeling silk from cocoon is depicted on the right.
The original meaning of unity refers to the thread end of silk thread, that is, "beginning" The so-called "unity of monarch and minister" is "the most fundamental beginning of respecting monarch" Therefore, the "new moon" in the calendar is so important because the first day of the first month is the beginning of a year, which can naturally be called "the most fundamental beginning".
With thread head (system), silk can be organized into thread (discipline), and with the beginning, it will be inherited naturally. The mutual training of "unification" and "discipline" can be used as another name for "history", and many historical books in past dynasties are famous for unification and discipline.
And the "merger" in the spatial sense is the meaning of the future. Ouyang Xiu's orthodoxy began with a quotation in The Biography of the Ram, which said that "the gentleman takes the right position" and "the king takes unification", but "unification" means "the world is one". Judging from his later articles, this is obviously a deliberate misinterpretation:
Private Eastern Jin said: Sui gets Chen, and then the world becomes one. Then push it to unify: Jin, Song, Qi, Liang, Chen and Sui. In private, Wei said: reunification will suffer. And then promote its unification: Tang belongs to Sui, Sui belongs to Hou Zhou, and Hou Zhou returns.
Obviously, unity can only be understood as "inheritance" in the sense of time, but to express the meaning of "merger", it is enough to have the simplest word "one"-think about the beginning of "Epanggong Fu": "Six kings finish, the four seas are one", why is the word "unity"?
Ouyang Xiu's article, on the other hand, is the beginning of summarizing the dispute over the legitimacy of the dynasty as "orthodoxy". Previously, there were only "positive leap theory" and "succession theory" (the word "orthodox" was originally used to describe family lineage and emperor Zen generation). Therefore, its sound (martial arts) is very extensive. In fact, this explanation is not only wrong in meaning, but also deviates from the focus of "positive leap theory" and "inheritance theory"
The so-called "positive leap" is right or wrong, while "succession" is a question of "who will inherit the family system", that is, "unification will suffer" as mentioned earlier.
For example, the "forward jump theory" focuses on: Is the wire material in front good, and can it conduct electricity next? "Unification Theory" Consideration: With so many lines ahead, which one should I take? Pick up nearby or pick a good one?
Although there is no direct reference to "positive" in the theory of succession, its selection criteria must also be "positive" evaluation criteria. It can be said that it is essentially the same as the "positive leap theory", but the latter is more used to evaluate the unified dynasty, while the former can only be used to discuss the regime in the separatist period.
In the conclusion of China's Historical Orthodoxy, he said that "in terms of orthodoxy, righteousness is more important than unification", but Ouyang Xiu's orthodoxy not only misinterpreted the word "unification", but also shifted the focus of "orthodoxy" to "unification", which actually replaced moralism with pragmatism, and it was this confusion that made Liang Qichao "orthodoxy".
Third, the orthodox "right": moralism and pragmatism.
There are different opinions on right and wrong, but in my opinion, they can all be summed up in the above two categories: "Moralism" and "Pragmatism". The former is based on "virtue" and the latter is based on "use".
The debate about whether Qin was a leap position in the early Han Dynasty was the representative of the former. Zi Tongzhi Wei Jian Ji Yi:
Qin burned books to bury Confucianism, and Han flourished. Scholars began to push the five virtues to win by life, taking Qin and Wei as leap positions, dominating the wood and fire instead of being king, so leap theory flourished.
It can be seen that the reason for Qin's "irregularity" is "tyranny". Similarly, taking usurpation as a leap and taking Yidi as a leap in the Central Plains belong to the category of "moral evaluation", that is, Zong Yi said that "the balance of history is right". I'm afraid it's difficult to measure Yuan Qing by such a standard.
Taking "unifying Kyushu" as the orthodox standard obviously belongs to the latter, such as Su Shi's post-orthodoxy:
Orthodox words, or that there are clouds in the world.
Today, one of the main reasons why many people claim that "Yuan Qing is the Orthodox Church" is their contribution to this territory. In addition, pragmatism is also reflected in the "private dynasty", that is, the author makes various "forced explanations" on the legitimacy of his own dynasty, such as Jin Cheng Han Tong Lun.
But-don't forget, we are not talking about "whether a dynasty is good or not", but "whether a dynasty is orthodox or not". The former is an open evaluation problem, while the latter is a conceptual problem in the history of historiography. The key is not what you think, but what historians of all ages think.
The "orthodox" value evaluation system is based on Confucian classics, and ancient history is basically based on Confucian historical view. So, is Confucianism "moralism" or "pragmatism"? The answer is obvious: is it immoral Confucianism or Confucianism?
According to the expositions on Daoism collected in the appendix of Zongyi's "Daoism in the History of China", it can be seen that in the Tang and Song Dynasties, Huangfushi and Zhang Qian took "Yidi" as the leap position, and in the Ming Dynasty, this view went further and became the mainstream, including Hu Han, Fang Xiaoru, Xu Fenpeng, Yang Shen, and Fei. In addition, the Ming people were very enthusiastic about rebuilding the history of the Song Dynasty, probably because they were dissatisfied with the juxtaposition of the Song, Liao and Jin Dynasties in the Yuan Dynasty and intended to rewrite the "orthodoxy". Among them, Wang Zhu's Quality of Song History and Ke Weiqi's New Edition of Song History both directly inherited the Song Dynasty, and the titles of the Yuan Dynasty were discarded. In the Qing Dynasty, websites were strictly protected. Except for Wang Fuzhi and Gan Jing, two adherents of the Qing Dynasty, they kept silent about the Yuan and Ming Dynasties, but most of them strongly criticized the former dynasties, naming them disunity, disunity, change, domination and theft. In a word, "moral judgment" is the mainstream of historians, and distinguishing "China people from foreigners" is not an invention of modern people.
In fact, moral judgment is the spirit of China's traditional historiography, that is, "in the history of Qi, in the history of Jin". Mr. Tsung i Jao believes that "the moral judgment of the monarch's behavior can be severe and just, and its origin is long-standing, which is actually a fine tradition of China historians and cannot be ignored." Also known as "those who hold this theory are awe-inspiring and inviolable." Zheng Sixiao, Fang Xiaoru, Huang Zhang and so on. Those who strongly criticized foreign regimes were praised in the book, saying that they were "correct in their arguments", "did not yield to certain political forces" and "knowledgeable and lost their individuality", while the Qing people's remarks about "right and wrong inside and outside" were considered as "under the rule of the Manchu monarch, their arguments had to be like this".
Many people like to regard the formal revision of the official history of the former dynasty as a sign of acknowledging the orthodoxy of the former dynasty, but this obviously cannot explain that the early Tang Dynasty revised eight histories in one breath, nor can it explain that the Ming Dynasty revised the Yuan history with Temujin as the starting point. In fact, the revision of history is more about declaring the complete demise of the former dynasty, which is one of the reasons why the revision of Yuan history was so hasty in the early Ming Dynasty. What's more, the historical right and wrong of history should not be decided by the emperor in one sentence. Even people in the Ming Dynasty didn't believe in this kind of "imperial decree". Should we be more passive than them?
Liang Qichao believes that orthodoxy has slave roots, becoming king and losing, and is regarded as a disciple under the moon by historians who really hold orthodoxy. In fact, these words are quite appropriate to evaluate Ouyang Xiu and Sima Guang's pragmatic standard of "Kyushu is orthodox": the pragmatic view of history can't escape the word "success or failure" anyway. It is a disgraceful fact that "the emperor's soldiers make Ma Zhuang stronger", while "the orthodox soldiers make Ma Zhuang stronger" makes people speechless.
More interestingly, the pragmatic standards of serving the DPRK will also be used by others. Scholars in the Northern Song Dynasty like to regard "unification" as the orthodox standard, because they want to emphasize their differences from the Five Dynasties. However, they probably didn't think that this logic of "only the world can be called orthodoxy" became one of the motives for Yuan Shizu Kublai Khan to destroy the Southern Song Dynasty. Yuan Quanchuan:
When he entered the DPRK, he advised him to cut the Song Dynasty, saying, "Since ancient times, emperors have been unorthodox, and there are seventeen or eighteen emperors in the holy court. Why abandon orthodoxy without asking? " Sai-jo said, "I have made up my mind."
Of course, a word can't play a decisive role, but at least it can show that pragmatic standards are in danger of taking their own consequences.
In fact, today's pragmatists no longer need to fight for the useless name "orthodoxy". Today, Confucianism is no longer dominant. Those who want to clear the name of "violent Qin" need not call Qin orthodox, but can establish a set of legalist historical views by themselves; If you want to be Yuan, you don't have to wear the inappropriate hat of "orthodoxy" on your head. Perhaps "Neiya Historical View" is a good choice.
And "orthodoxy", once a "historical balance", is now just an item weighed on the scale. Instead of using it to praise or criticize dynasties, it is better to study our traditional historiography spirit with it as the object. Beyond the "orthodox" argument, we can appreciate the true charm of history.