1
嗚呼，堯、舜盛矣！ 三代之王，功有餘而德不足，故皆更始以自新，由是改正朔矣，至於後世，遂名年以建元。 及僭竊交興，而稱號紛雜，則不可以不別也。 五代十國，稱帝改元者七。 吳越、荊、楚，常行中國年號。 然予聞於故老，謂吳越亦嘗稱帝改元，而求其事跡不可得，頗疑吳越後自諱之。 及旁采閩、楚、南漢諸國之書，與吳越往來者多矣，皆無稱帝之事。 獨得其封落星石為寶石山制書，稱寶正六年辛卯，則知其嘗改元矣。 辛卯，長興二年，乃镠之末世也，然不見其終始所因，故不得而備列。 錢氏訖五代，嘗外尊中國，豈其張軌之比乎。 十國皆非中國有也，其稱帝改元與不，未足較其得失，故並列之。 作《十國世家年譜》。
Alas, how magnificent were Yao and Shun! The kings of the Xia, Shang, and Zhou had accomplished much but lacked sufficient virtue, so each renewed his rule to make a fresh start. From this arose the reform of the calendar; in later ages, rulers came to name the years of their reigns to mark the beginning of a new era. Once usurpations arose one after another and titles grew tangled and confused, they had to be distinguished. Among the states of the Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms period, seven declared themselves emperors and established new reign eras. Wu-Yue, Jingnan, and Chu ordinarily followed the reign eras of the central court. Yet I have heard from old men that Wu-Yue too once declared itself emperor and changed its era name, though the particulars cannot be recovered; I rather suspect that Wu-Yue later suppressed the record on its own account. When I collected materials from the records of Min, Chu, Southern Han, and the other states—many of which record dealings with Wu-Yue—none mention Wu-Yue's having claimed the imperial title. Only in an imperial edict enfeoffing the Falling Star Stone as Baoshi Mountain, dated to the sixth year of Baozheng (xinmao), do we learn that they once established a new reign era. Xinmao corresponds to the second year of the Changxing era, the last years of Qian Liu's reign; but because the beginning and end of the matter are nowhere recorded, it cannot be set forth in full. Throughout the Five Dynasties the Qian clan outwardly honored the central court—were they not comparable to Zhang Gui? None of the Ten Kingdoms truly belonged to the central realm; whether a state declared itself emperor and changed its era name is not enough to judge its merits and faults, so I list them together. Thus I composed the "Timeline for the Hereditary Houses of the Ten Kingdoms."
2
〈（以下表略）〉
(Table below omitted.)〉
3
或問：十國固非中國有也，然猶命以封爵，而稱中國年號來朝貢者，亦有之矣，本紀之不書，何也？ 曰：封爵之不書，所以見其非中國有也。 其朝貢之來如夷狄，以夷狄書之則甚矣。 問者曰：四夷、十國，皆非中國之有也，四夷之封爵朝貢則書，而十國之不書何也？ 曰：以中國而視夷狄，夷狄之可也。 以五代之君而視十國，夷狄之則未可也。 故十國之封爵、朝貢，不如夷狄，則無以書之。 書如夷狄，則五代之君未可以夷狄之也。 是以外而不書，見其自絕於中國焉爾。 問者曰：外而不書，則東漢之立何以書？ 曰：吾於東漢，常異其辭於九國也。 《春秋》因亂世而立治法，本紀以治法而正亂君。 世亂則疑難之事多，正疑處難，敢不慎也。 周、漢之事，可謂難矣哉！ 或謂：劉旻嘗致書於周，求其子赟不得而後自立，然則旻之志不以忘漢為仇，而以失子為仇也。 曰：漢嘗詔立赟為嗣，則赟為漢之國君，不獨為旻子也。 旻之大義，宜不為周屈，其立雖未必是，而義當不屈於周，此其可以異乎九國矣。 終旻之世，猶稱乾祐，至承鈞立，然後改元，則旻之志豈不可哀也哉！
Someone asked: The Ten Kingdoms were plainly not part of the central realm, yet some still received enfeoffments and came to court bearing tribute under the central dynasty's reign eras—why does the basic annals not record them? The answer: That enfeoffments go unrecorded shows that these states did not belong to the central realm. Their tribute missions came as those of barbarians would; to record them in the manner of barbarians would be going too far. The questioner said: The Four Barbarians and the Ten Kingdoms alike did not belong to the central realm—why record the enfeoffments and tribute of the Four Barbarians but not those of the Ten Kingdoms? The answer: To regard the barbarians from the standpoint of the central court is permissible. For the rulers of the Five Dynasties to treat the Ten Kingdoms as barbarians is not permissible. Therefore the enfeoffments and tribute of the Ten Kingdoms, being beneath those of the barbarians in standing, cannot be recorded. To record them as barbarians would imply that the rulers of the Five Dynasties themselves could be treated as barbarians. Hence they are placed outside the record and left unwritten, showing that they had cut themselves off from the central realm. The questioner said: If they are set outside and not recorded, then why is the founding of Eastern Han recorded? The answer: In my treatment of Eastern Han I consistently use wording distinct from that applied to the other nine states. The Spring and Autumn Annals established governing principles amid an age of chaos; the basic annals employ those principles to set right unruly rulers. When the age is chaotic, doubtful matters multiply; to resolve doubts amid difficulty—how could one fail to be cautious? The affairs of the Zhou and Han states may truly be called difficult! Some argue that Liu Min once sent a letter to the Zhou court seeking the return of his son Yun and only afterward established himself on his own; on this view Min's motive was not enmity toward those who had abandoned Han but enmity over the loss of his son. The answer: Han had once issued an edict establishing Yun as heir; Yun was Han's sovereign, not merely Min's son. By the standard of great righteousness Min ought not to have bowed to Zhou; though his establishing himself may not have been correct in every respect, righteousness required that he not submit to Zhou—here he may be distinguished from the other nine states. Throughout Min's life he still used the Qianyou reign era; only when Cheng Jun succeeded did the state change its era name—how lamentable was Min's resolve!
4
〈（十國年世，惟楚、閩、東漢三國，諸家之說不同，而互有得失，最難考正。 今略其諸說而正其是者，庶幾博覽者不惑，而一以《年譜》為正也。 馬氏，據《湖湘故事》、《九國志》、《運歷圖》，並雲殷以長興元年卒，是歲，子希聲立，長興三年卒。 而《五代舊史》殷列傳云，殷長興二年卒，享年七十八，子希聲立，不周歲而卒； 明宗本紀長興元年，書希聲除節度使，起復，三年八月，又書希聲卒。 今據《九國志》，殷以大中六年歲在壬申生，享年七十九。 蓋自大中壬申至長興元年庚寅，實七十九年，為得其實。 而希聲，據《湖湘故事》、《九國志》、《運歷圖》皆以三年卒，與明宗本紀皆合，不疑。 惟《舊史》書殷卒二年，及年七十八，希聲立不周歲卒為繆爾。 希萼、希崇之亂，南唐盡遷馬氏之族歸於金陵。 《五代舊史》云，時廣順元年也。 而《運歷圖》雲乾祐二年馬氏滅者，繆也。 初，殷入湖南，掘地得石，讖云：「龍起頭，豬掉尾。」 蓋殷以乾寧三年歲在丙辰，自立於湖南，至廣順元年辛亥而滅。 《九國志》以乾祐三年為辛亥，《湖湘故事》以顯德元年為辛亥者，皆繆也。 惟《五代舊史》得其實。 王氏世次，曰潮、曰審知、曰延翰、曰璘、曰昶、曰曦、曰延政，凡七主。 而潮以唐景福元年歲在壬子始入福州，至開運三年丙午而滅，實五十五年。 當云七主五十五年，為得其實。 而《運歷圖》雲五十六年，《九國志》、《五代舊史》、《紀年通譜》、《閩中實錄》、《閩王列傳》皆云七主六十年者，皆繆也。 審知，《五代舊史》本傳云，同光元年十二月卒，《九國志》亦云同光元年卒。 《運歷圖》同光三年卒。 今檢《五代舊史》莊宗本紀，同光二年五月丙午，審知加檢校太師守中書令，豈得卒於元年也？ 又至四年二月庚子，福建副使王延翰奏稱權知軍府事，三月辛亥，遂除延翰威武軍節度使。 以此推之，審知卒當在同光三年十二月，蓋閩去京師遠，明年二月延翰之奏始至京師，理當然也。 又據《閩王列傳》、《九國志》，皆云審知在位二十九年。 審知以唐乾寧四年嗣位，是歲丁巳，至同光三年乙酉，實二十九年。 則《運歷圖》為是，而《舊史》、《九國志》元年卒者，皆繆也。 璘本名延鈞，《五代舊史》本傳云在位十二年。 《九國志》云在位十一年。 《閩王列傳》、《紀年通譜》皆云在位十年。 蓋璘以天成元年殺延翰自立，是歲丙戌，至清泰二年乙未，實十年而卒，與《閩王列傳》合，而《舊史》、《九國志》皆繆也。 璘以清泰二年改元永和，是歲見殺，而《舊史》、《九國志》、《運歷圖》皆無永和之號，又《運歷圖》書鏻見殺在天福元年丙申者，皆繆也。 劉旻，《九國志》云，乾祐七年十一月旻卒，享年六十，子承鈞立，時年二十九。 乾祐七年，乃顯德元年也。 而《五代舊史》、《周世宗實錄》、《運歷圖》、《紀年通譜》皆云顯德二年冬旻卒。 又有旻偽中書舍人王保衡《晉陽見聞要錄》雲，旻乙卯生，卒年六十一，子承鈞立。 承鈞丙戌生，立時年二十九。 保衡是旻之臣，其親所見聞，所得最實，然而頗為轉寫差誤爾。 按保衡書旻乙卯生，若享年六十一，當於乙卯歲卒，則是顯德二年也。 又書承鈞丙戌生，立時年二十九，則當是顯德元年甲寅歲也。 豈有旻卒於二年，承鈞以元年嗣位？ 理必不然。 以《九國志》參較，旻享年六十，顯德元年卒，承鈞以是歲嗣位，時年二十九，為得其實，但《見聞要錄》衍「一」字爾。 其雲二年卒者，皆繆也。 《九國志》又云，承鈞立，服喪三年，至乾祐九年服除，改十年為天會元年，當是顯德四年。 而《紀年通譜》以顯德三年為天會元年者，繆也。 晉與梁為敵國，自稱天祐者二十年，故首列於《年譜》，其後遂滅梁而為唐，故不列於世家。）〉
(Among the chronologies of the Ten Kingdoms, only Chu, Min, and Eastern Han present differing accounts in the various sources, each with its strengths and flaws—these are the hardest to verify. Here I briefly set aside the various accounts and correct what is sound, so that readers may not be misled and may take this Timeline as the standard. For the Ma clan of Chu: according to the Huxiang Gushi, the Jiuguo Zhi, and the Yunli Tu, all agree that Yin died in the first year of Changxing; that year his son Xisheng succeeded, and Xisheng died in the third year of Changxing. But the biography of Yin in the Old History of the Five Dynasties says he died in the second year of Changxing at the age of seventy-eight, that his son Xisheng succeeded him, and that Xisheng died within a year; The annals of Emperor Mingzong for the first year of Changxing record Xisheng's appointment as military commissioner, resuming office from mourning leave; in the eighth month of the third year they again record Xisheng's death. According to the Jiuguo Zhi, Yin was born in the sixth year of Dazhong (the renshen year) and died at the age of seventy-nine. From the renshen year of Dazhong to the gengyin year of the first year of Changxing is in fact seventy-nine years—this is the correct figure. As for Xisheng, the Huxiang Gushi, the Jiuguo Zhi, and the Yunli Tu all place his death in the third year, which agrees with the annals of Mingzong—there is no doubt here. Only the Old History's claim that Yin died in the second year at the age of seventy-eight and that Xisheng died within a year of succeeding is mistaken. During the turmoil of Xi'e and Xichong, Southern Tang relocated the entire Ma clan to Jinling. The Old History of the Five Dynasties says this occurred in the first year of Guangshun. But the Yunli Tu's claim that the Ma clan was destroyed in the second year of Qianyou is mistaken. When Yin first entered Hunan, he dug up a stone bearing a prophecy that read: "The dragon rises at the head, the pig drops at the tail." For Yin established himself in Hunan in the third year of Qianning (the bingchen year) and was destroyed in the first year of Guangshun (the xinhai year). The Jiuguo Zhi's identification of the third year of Qianyou as the xinhai year and the Huxiang Gushi's identification of the first year of Xiande as xinhai are both mistaken. Only the Old History of the Five Dynasties has the correct date. The Wang clan succession runs: Chao, Shenzhi, Yanhan, Lin, Chang, Xi, and Yanzheng—seven rulers in all. Chao entered Fuzhou in the first year of Jingfu of Tang (the renzi year), and the clan was destroyed in the third year of Kaiyun (the bingwu year)—fifty-five years in all. The correct figure is seven rulers over fifty-five years. But the Yunli Tu gives fifty-six years, and the Jiuguo Zhi, the Old History of the Five Dynasties, the Jinian Tongpu, the Minzhong Shilu, and the Min Wang Liezhuan all give seven rulers over sixty years—these are all mistaken. For Shenzhi, the biography in the Old History of the Five Dynasties says he died in the twelfth month of the first year of Tongguang; the Jiuguo Zhi likewise places his death in the first year of Tongguang. The Yunli Tu places his death in the third year of Tongguang. Checking the annals of Emperor Zhuangzong in the Old History of the Five Dynasties: in the fifth month of the second year of Tongguang (bingwu day), Shenzhi was promoted to acting Grand Preceptor and concurrent Director of the Secretariat—how could he have died in the first year? Further, in the second month of the fourth year (gengzi day), the Fujian deputy commissioner Wang Yanhan reported that he was acting military governor; in the third month (xinhai day), Yanhan was appointed military commissioner of the Weiwu Army. From this we infer that Shenzhi died in the twelfth month of the third year of Tongguang; Min lies far from the capital, so Yanhan's report reached the capital only in the second month of the following year—which is only to be expected. According to the Min Wang Liezhuan and the Jiuguo Zhi, both state that Shenzhi reigned twenty-nine years. Shenzhi succeeded in the fourth year of Qianning of Tang (the dingsi year) and reigned until the third year of Tongguang (the yiyou year)—twenty-nine years in all. Thus the Yunli Tu is correct, while the Old History and the Jiuguo Zhi, which place his death in the first year, are mistaken. Lin, whose original name was Yanjun: the biography in the Old History of the Five Dynasties says he reigned twelve years. The Jiuguo Zhi says he reigned eleven years. The Min Wang Liezhuan and the Jinian Tongpu both say he reigned ten years. Lin killed Yanhan and established himself in the first year of Tiancheng (the bingxu year) and died in the second year of Qingtai (the yimao year)—ten years in all, which agrees with the Min Wang Liezhuan; the Old History and the Jiuguo Zhi are mistaken. Lin changed the era name to Yonghe in the second year of Qingtai and was killed that same year; yet the Old History, the Jiuguo Zhi, and the Yunli Tu all omit the Yonghe era name, and the Yunli Tu's claim that Lin was killed in the first year of Tianfu (the bingshen year) is likewise mistaken. For Liu Min, the Jiuguo Zhi says that in the eleventh month of the seventh year of Qianyou Min died at the age of sixty and his son Cheng Jun succeeded at the age of twenty-nine. The seventh year of Qianyou corresponds to the first year of Xiande. But the Old History of the Five Dynasties, the Shilu of Emperor Shizong of Zhou, the Yunli Tu, and the Jinian Tongpu all place Min's death in the winter of the second year of Xiande. There is also the Jinyang Jianwen Yaolu by Wang Baoheng, a Secretariat drafter in Min's court, which says Min was born in the yimao year, died at the age of sixty-one, and was succeeded by his son Cheng Jun. Cheng Jun was born in the bingxu year and was twenty-nine when he succeeded. Baoheng was Min's minister; what he witnessed firsthand is the most reliable account, yet it has suffered considerable errors in transmission. According to Baoheng's record, Min was born in the yimao year; if he died at the age of sixty-one, he should have died in a yimao year—which would be the second year of Xiande. It also records that Cheng Jun was born in the bingxu year and was twenty-nine at succession—which would place his accession in the jiayin year, the first year of Xiande. How could Min have died in the second year while Cheng Jun succeeded in the first? That cannot be right. Compared with the Jiuguo Zhi, Min died at sixty in the first year of Xiande and Cheng Jun succeeded that same year at twenty-nine—this is the correct account; the Jianwen Yaolu merely added a spurious character for "one." Those who place his death in the second year are all mistaken. The Jiuguo Zhi also records that when Cheng Jun succeeded he observed three years of mourning; in the ninth year of Qianyou the mourning period ended and the tenth year was renamed the first year of Tianhui—which corresponds to the fourth year of Xiande. But the Jinian Tongpu's identification of the third year of Xiande as the first year of Tianhui is mistaken. Jin and Liang were rival states; Jin used the Tianyou era name for twenty years, so it is listed first in the Timeline; afterward it destroyed Liang and became Tang, and therefore is not included among the hereditary houses.)〉