【作者】 杨机像；

【导师】 李书源；

【作者基本信息】 吉林大学 ， 中国近现代史， 2004， 硕士

【摘要】 朝鲜与中国山水相连，两国人民的友谊源远流长，历史上形成的宗藩关系不仅是两国统治阶级政治同盟的象征，而且也是两国人民友好交往的桥梁。在十九世纪中期以前，中朝宗藩关系很大程度上只流于形式上，主要表现为“朝贡”、“册封”等仪式，因而显得十分松散。但是，随着西方列强的东来与日本的崛起，曾经是“遁隐之国”的朝鲜开始被卷入世界资本主义市场，朝鲜半岛成为列强争衡的战略据点。以清政府为中心的东方文化圈与西方列强及日本为代表的西方文化，在朝鲜半岛迎送相撞。作为东方文化圈联系纽带的中朝宗藩关系，正是在这样的大背景下危机日益加剧，直至最终全面崩溃。中朝宗藩关系的崩溃，是内因与外因共同作用的结果。这里所指的内因包括维系这一关系的双方，即行将没落的清政府与朝鲜李氏王朝；外因是指对这一关系构成威胁的外部因素，主要是西方列强及日本。从中朝宗藩关系崩溃的历史进程考察，外因处于主动，而内因则处于相对被动。这一现象根源于中西方文化的本质区别，以利益为导向的西方式开放文化，对外具有强烈的扩张性；而以“内圣外王”为核心的传统儒家文化，在西方文化与统治危机日益加剧的双重打击下，丧失了“内圣”的环境，也就限制了“外王”的张力，呈现出非扩张与内敛性。因此，从这个意义上说，中朝宗藩关系的崩溃是中西方文化冲突的必然结果，具有一定的历史必然性。就内因而言，在理论上清政府与朝鲜李氏王朝两者的力量及其整合程度，起到加速或延缓中朝宗藩关系崩溃的历史进程。但是，由于两国统治集团过于保守、腐朽，在西方文化的撞击下，都不同程度地存在着文化选择与政治权力结构的二元性，这无疑削弱了中朝共同抗击外来侵略的力量，同时也大大增强了整合的难度。从总体上看，袁世凯就是以中朝实力的整合者的身份而出现的，因此从袁世凯登陆朝鲜的那一刻起，他的使命就是挽救危机日益加剧的中朝宗藩关系。但是从结果上看，袁世凯并没有完成这一使命，中朝宗藩关系也以一场战争失败者的身份不体面地退出了历史舞台。那么到底怎样公正地评价袁世凯在朝期间的所作所为？袁世凯在朝期间的所作所为对中朝宗藩关系到底产生了怎样的影响？这是本文所要探讨的问题。文章共分四章，紧紧围绕中朝宗藩关系这一主题，以对一关系具有重大影响的事件（壬午兵变、甲申政变、甲午战争）为线索，分析了清政府、日本及西方列强在朝势力的动态发展过程。同时，对袁世凯在每一个重大事件的过程中的活动作了重点叙述，旨在揭示其强化宗主权对中朝宗藩关系的影响。第一章：袁世凯入朝 这一章要点是有两方面，一是概述十九世纪中后期的东亚局势及中朝传统宗藩关系，二是袁世凯入朝之后在壬午兵变中的表现。从文章的总体上看，这部分仅是一个背景性介绍，即将中朝宗藩关系放到当时的东亚局势中加以考察，一方面为袁世凯入朝提供一个大舞台，另一方面也试图为全文的论点（中朝宗藩关系的终结具有一定的历史必然性）作一个铺垫。第二章：袁世凯与甲申政变 这一章围绕甲申政变展开，对袁世凯在甲申政变之后果断出击给予了积极评价。但是由于李鸿章等人的失策，并没有将袁世凯在前方的胜利转化为谈判桌上有利的筹码，而是采取了“外须和戎”的妥协退让政策，重蹈了在越南战争中不败而败的覆辙，《朝日汉城条约》与《中日天津条约》的签订，使日本在现代国际法角度上获得了与清政府平等享有在朝特权，从而为甲午战争埋下了祸根。第三章：袁世凯强化宗主权 甲申政变之后，日本获得了与清政府平等享有在朝特权，李鸿章逐渐意识到日本已经成为中朝宗藩关系的最大敌人，这是袁世凯强化宗主权的前提。袁世凯从政治、经济、外交等方面加强对朝鲜的控制，其出发点是加强宗主权，以排斥日本。从主观上讲，袁世凯强化宗主权是无可厚非的，但是由于受到种因素的限制，在一些细节的处理上不同程度地存在着技术性失误，导致客观效果与主观动机的不相吻合。第四章：袁世凯与甲午战前的中朝宗藩关系 这一章中主要内容是袁世凯在甲午战争前夕为挽回局势所作的最后努力。第五章：袁世凯与中朝宗藩关系的终结 这一章主要是探讨袁世凯在中朝宗藩关系终结的历史进程所处的地位，在袁世凯维持中朝宗藩关系这个大方向上给予了肯定，同时指出了由于种种因素的限制，袁世凯在一些问题的处理上也存在不同程度的失误。特别要指出的是，本文之所以以“余论”作为全文的结尾，在于避免重复。由于本文在第五章中就探讨了袁世凯在中朝宗藩关系终结的历史进程所处的地位问题，这实际上就已经是本文的结论了。但是，作者为了将结论进一步引申，同时对一些问题作进一步的阐述，于是补充了“余论”部分。更多还原

【Abstract】 China and Korea are joined by mountains and rivers and the friendship of the two peoples is of long standing. The Sino- Korean suzerain-vassal state relationship, which had taken its shape in history, was not only a symbol of the political ally of the ruling class in both countries, by also a bridge for the friendly communication of the two peoples. Prior to the middle of 19th century, the Sino-Koreann suzerain-vassal state relationship was, to a certain extent, a matter of form, mainly shown by some rituals, such as “tribute”, “confer”, etc.. Therefore, the relationship was very loose. However, with the east-coming of western powers and the growing-up of Japan, Korea, once “Hermit Country”, began to be entangled in the capitalistic world market. Korea Peninsula became the strategic beachhead for the balance of the powers. The Eastern cultural circle, which centered on Qing Dynasty Government, and the Western cultural, which was represented by Western powers and Japan, clashed on Korean Peninsula. It was under these circumstances that the crisis of the Sino-Korean suzerain-vassal state relationship, as the tie of the Eastern cultural circle, pricked up increasingly, and finally collapsed. The collapse of the Sino-Korean suzerain-vassal state relationship was the result of the effects of both intrinsic factor and extrinsic factor. Herein the intrinsic factor includes both parties that maintained the relationship – the declining Qing Dynasty government and Lee Dynasty of Korea; the extrinsic factor refers to the external factors that threatened the relationship, mainly Western powers and Japan. If the collapse is reviewed from its historical course, the extrinsic factor was active while the intrinsic factor was comparatively passive. The phenomenon rooted in the essential differences between Eastern and Western cultures. The benefit-oriented Western culture was open and strongly characterized by its outward expansion; on the contrary, under the duple strike of Western culture and increasingly deteriorated reign crisis, traditional Confucian culture, whose core was “saint home and king abroad”, lost the environment for “home saint” and its expansion as “abroad king” was limited, therefore, it was characterized by its non-expansion and restraint. In this sense, the collapse of the Sino-Korean suzerain-vassal state relationship was an inevitable result of the clashes between Eastern and Western cultures and it is historically ineluctable. In terms of intrinsic factor, the strength of Qing Dynasty government and Korean Lee Dynasty and the extent to which it was integrated, in theory, accelerated or delayed the historical course of the collapse. However, as the ruling blocs of the two countries were too conservative and corrupted, under the impact of Western culture the duality of cultural option and political power structure existed in both countries in different degrees. This undoubtedly crippled the strengths of both countries in their ally to oppugn the invasion; simultaneously, it made their integration very difficult.As a whole, Yuan Shikai was identified as the integrator of the Sino-Korean strength. Therefore, since the moment he landed on Korea, he began his mission to save the increasingly deteriorated Sino-Korean suzerain-vassal state relationship. But as a result, Yuan failed to fulfill this mission and the relationship between the losers of the war disgracefully retreated from the arena of history. How can Yuan’s doings in Korea be fairly evaluated? What effect did his doings in Korea take on the Sino-Korean suzerain-vassal state relationship? These are the matters this paper probes into. This paper, divided into four chapters, focusing on the subject of Sino-Korean suzerain-vassal state relationship and taking as clues the events (Renwu Mutiny, Jiashen Coup d’etat and Jiawu War) that are significant to the relationship, analyzes the dynamic development of forces in Korea of Qing Dynasty government, Japan and Western powers. At the same time, it also relates Yuan’s activities in the proces更多还原