“宋、辽、金三史的正统体系”在明代未被颠覆——兼与刘浦江商榷

Legitimate System of Song,Liao and Jin Histories Was Not Subverted in Ming Dynasty——A Discussion with Liu Pujiang

宋辽金对峙时期,宋人自称"中国"、自称"正统",辽人和金人也自称"中国"、自称"正统"。元人自从议修辽、宋、金三史之始,就围绕着辽、宋、金的"正统"问题展开激烈的争辩,直至元朝末年,才由脱脱确立了辽、宋、金"三国各与正统,各系其年号"的修史方案,承认了辽、金的正统地位。此后,有关辽金"正统"问题仍然是一个有争议的话题。刘浦江认为"明代士人普遍否认辽、金正统","彻底颠覆宋、辽、金三史的正统体系",与史实相去甚远。明代确实有人试图通过重修《宋史》,颠覆辽、宋、金三史"各与正统"的"正统体系",否定辽、金的正统地位,但并非是普遍否认辽、金正统,这从明代官方未支持有关重修宋史的建议,并由国子监主持刊行包括《辽史》和《金史》在内的中国正史"二十一史",以及"二十一史"在明代的广泛传播等方面就能看出来。它说明,试图否认辽、金正统一派的观点并未为明代主流正统观念所采纳,主流观点仍然承认辽、宋、金"各与正统"的地位,"宋、辽、金三史的正统体系"并未被颠覆。也说明,逐渐强化"华夷之辨",并按照"尊夏贱夷"思想区分正统和非正统,并未为明人所普遍接受。而逐渐淡化"华夷之辨",倡导"华夷一体",才能从一个侧面彰显出近千年华夷观念的演变轨迹。

In the confrontation between Song, Liao and Jin, each declared itself as the Central Kingdom with legitimacy. People in Yuan Dynasty had debated heatedly on the issue of legitimacy since they proposed to compile histories of the three. Not until the end of the Yuan Dynasty did they established a scheme to write their history with respective chronicle years with legitimate which is thus recognized. Thereafter, the issue of legitimacy of Liao and Jin remained debatable. Liu Pujiang is incorrect to argue that ＂scholars in Ming Dynasty generally denied Liao and Jin of their legitimacy＂. Although there were people in Ming Dynasty who tried to subvert that legitimacy through re-writing history of Song Dynasty, it was not a universal practice that the proposal of re-writing was not supported by the authority. The mainstream still held the respective legitimacy. It was proved that people in Ming Dynasty did not distinguish Han nationality from minorities as being respectable from humble. Instead, an evolution of idea on Han and minorities in a thousand years has proposed a national unification, while the distinction has been gradually faded out.