【作者】 张磊；

【导师】 孙晓春；

【作者基本信息】 南开大学 ， 政治学理论， 2010， 博士

【摘要】 明清之际是中国历史上剧烈动荡的时期。在这一时期,中国社会发生了巨大的变革,明朝覆亡,清军入关,专制政治高度强化,并变得日益腐朽、黑暗,社会矛盾不断加深,民众生活困苦不堪。面对社会政治的大变局,清初思想家们对中国古代社会的政治传统进行了反思。唐甄等思想家超越了对于一家一姓王朝兴衰的慨叹,将问题上升到分析总结历代王朝兴亡得失的层面,展开了对秦以来专制政治的审视,并提出了对理想政治生活的构想。中国古代素有重民爱民的民本传统,思想家很早就认识到民众在政治生活中的重要作用,并期望君主推行仁政,这种观念成为了唐甄直接的思想资源。唐甄继承了这样一种传统,并将此作为其全部政治思想的核心和理论基础。唐甄从传统的民本思想出发,对于统治者的责任和政治的目的进行了深刻地体悟,他认识到：爱民养民利民是君主应该承担的社会责任,是其为政的出发点。在唐甄看来,三代的君主是爱民利民的圣主明君,三代之治无疑就是爱民利民的好政治,所以他以三代之治为摹本,诠释了为君为臣之道与养民利民的主张。唐甄认为,只要君臣戮力,以为民谋利为己任,推行养民富民之政,就能达到民众富裕、政治修明、天下大治之世。这即是唐甄的政治理想。虽然唐甄推崇三代之治,但他并不是想单纯地复原三代,而是在构建他自己的理想社会,表现了他对优良社会生活的一种憧憬,更表达了他对现实政治的一种态度。在他看来,现实的政治不是养民利民的政治,因此,他以民本思想为旗帜、以理想国为武器,对君主专制政治进行了猛烈地抨击和批判。中国古代历来就有批判暴政的传统,唐甄继承了政治批判的传统,深刻地批判了暴君暴政,他的批判较之同时代的思想家更加猛烈、大胆。在中国古代的思想家那里,暴君是被作为暴政的根源来看待的,所以,唐甄将矛头直指专制君主,称秦以来的帝王为贼。诚然,唐甄不管君主历史功过一语骂尽天下帝王是偏激的言论,但是却揭露出了专制君主置自身私利于天下人利益之上的本质。唐甄认为,在专制国家中,君主拥有最高权力,皇权至上,君主专制、独裁,因此,天下大治在于君主,天下大乱更在于君主,暴君是暴政的根源。暴吏也是造成暴政的原因之一,所以,唐甄对官吏处理政务流于形式、暴吏漠视民众的经济状况和利用职权贪污等方面也进行了激烈的批判。封建纲常伦理是为专制统治服务的,专制统治者主张民众遵守纲常伦理,目的就是维护封建统治秩序。唐甄以其义利观和气节观为理论基础、以君臣之义为突破口批判了封建纲常伦理。他从君臣人格平等和君臣的社会责任的角度批判了君为臣纲的伦理纲常。他认为,君臣都应为民谋利,将民众的利益放在首位。忠君,是以民众的利益为基础的。忠君,忠的是爱民利民之君。因此,他对于臣下的愚忠进行了猛烈的抨击。唐甄对于夫为妻纲也进行了反思,希望夫妻关系由以夫为中心转向互相尊重的关系,这在一定程度上冲击了封建社会男尊女卑、夫为妻纲的封建教条。唐甄体认到了现实政治的诸多弊端,试图通过政治改良实现他的政治理想。约束现实的政治权力是中西方思想家始终关注的主题,历代思想家都为此做出过许多设想和努力,唐甄等清初思想家对于这一主题更是关注。在唐甄看来,治乱惟君,因此,约束君主权力,使其向着利民的方向发展尤其重要。唐甄与其他思想家一样,也希望通过分割君主权力来减少君主权力过于集中给国家和民众带来的危害。设置宰相是唐甄和黄宗羲的共识,但是唐甄的置相主张较之黄宗羲更为大胆,他期望通过相权制约君权,甚至有取代之意,有些许立宪君主之息。为了防止权力过于集中,唐甄还提出六卿分职、百官尽责的主张。可以说,唐甄的主张已经触及制度层面的问题了。此外,改良官制、整饬吏治也是唐甄改良政治的重要主张。通过改良,他希望建立一个精简、利民、廉洁的官僚机构。唐甄的“法治”主张也是从民众的利益出发的。他认为,法律对于国家的治理是非常重要的,法在政治生活中是必不可少的,因此,国家应制定利国利民的良法,并要以宜民宜俗为标准因时而变。而且,在唐甄看来,法律应严惩奸佞之臣和贪官污吏,他甚至提出了惩罚杀天下人的暴君的主张,但对于民众,他认为法要从宽。唐甄的“法治”主张一方面体现出了他对于法律重要性的认识,另一方面也表现了他对于民众命运的深切关注。唐甄对于君主专制的讨伐是猛烈的、大胆的,他为实现政治理想而提出的政治改良的主张也是比较合理的。在制约君主权力方面,唐甄已经从分割权力的角度来考虑这一问题了,表明他已经认识到了分割权力的重要性。唐甄改良官制、整饬吏治以及关于“法治”的主张也体现出他对于实现政治理想所作出的努力。从唐甄对君主专制政治的批判和政治改良的主张中,我们可以看到唐甄以民为本、凡事为民、厚民生的核心价值观念。唐甄的政治批判思想是他那个时代的精华。但是,唐甄的思想动力仍来自于传统,这就使他无法摆脱传统思想的束缚,从他的批判思想中我们可以看到传统思想的局限性。唐甄虽然对于君主专制做了反思,但他所批判的是君主集权和暴君暴政,他所考虑的是不合理的政治过程,并没有上升到批判君主专制制度的高度。因此,他改良政治的主张也只能流于幻想。虽然,唐甄等思想家已经从分割君权的角度来考虑制约君权的问题,但是他们没有找到制约君权的有效途径,仍然在行政权力内部对权力进行划分,而没有跳出行政权力从外部结构上寻找方法。他们分割君权的主张只能在一定程度上防止权力过于集中,而如何防范权力被滥用,他们没有良方。在这里,唐甄以及传统思想家还忽略了一个重要问题,即专制君主是否还握有最高权力。如果君主仍然集一切权力于一身,那么通过置相和六卿分职来分割君权的设计就不可能成为现实,专制君主是不允许这样的事情发生的。至于改革官制和“法治”主张能否实现,也全凭君主个人好恶。只要君主专制制度还存在,最高权力还掌握在君主手中,唐甄的政治改良主张也只能流于形式和幻想,对于君主的制约也只能局限于道义。虽然唐甄等传统思想家主张君主爱民利民,但他们所关注的也只是民众的经济条件,并没有给予民众政治权利,民众仍然被设计为权力的客体,他们的利益只能由君主来谋,他们只是被爱、被养的对象。由于传统思想家只从政治过程中去反思现实政治的弊端,所以必然会从人的身上去寻找原因,因此他们只能将实现政治改良主张的愿望寄托于圣主明君。他们希望的无非是自身道德优良的君主能够给予民众优良的社会生活,最终,他们又滑向了对圣主明君的期盼中。更多还原

【Abstract】 The late Ming and early Qing Dynasty was characterized by a great many upheavals. Ming Dynasty was fallen and the army of Qing Dynasty moved in on Shanhai Pass. The autocratic politics was highly intensified, and social contradictions manifested a deeper and far-reaching trend. The common people in those days suffered a lot. In face of the political change of the society, the thinkers in the early Qing Dynasty reflected upon the political traditions of the ancient China. Tang Zhen and the other thinkers went beyong the lament for what the one-family empire has risen and fallen, and reconsidered the system of monarch autocracy,and came up with new ideas for the idealistic politics.The ancient China was well known for the man-based tradition. The thinkers early realized the important role of the common people, and expected the emperors to carry out a policy of benevolence from which Tang Zhen’s thought came directly. Tang Zhen followed the tradition and regarded it as the core of his political ideas. Starting from the man-based tradition, Tang Zhen made an intensive reflection on the responsibilities of the rulers and the purposes of politics. He came to the realization that working in the interest of and for the convenience of the people was the social responsibility of the rulers and the starting point of his policy as well. According to Tang Zhen, the emperors of the three generations were those of keen intelligence and excellent judgment, so the reign of those three generations would be unquestionably successful government. Tang Zhen modelled on the government of three-generation and expounded the principles to be emperor and courtiers as well, and proposed the claim of raising the public and benefiting the people.Tang Zhen held that it could be attainable for people to live in abundence and the society in good order on condition that the emperor and the courtiers joined hands together to work in the interest of and for the convenience of the people. This was Tang Zhen’s political ideal. Tang Zhen exalted the three-generation reign, but he did not want to return to it in a simple way. He wanted to build his ideal society. Tang Zhen’s idea showed his longing for a good social life and his attitude towards the current politics, In his eyes, the current politics was not in the interest of and for the convenience of the people. Therefore, he exalted the man-based idea, armoured himself with his ideal politics, and opposed and criticized the autocratic monarchy vehemently.All through the ages in ancient China there was a tradition of criticizing the tyranny. Tang Zhen followed the tradition. He criticized the autocratic monarchy more vehemently and more fearlessly. In the eyes of the ancient Chinese thinkers, the tyrant was regarded as the cause of the tyranny. So Tang Zhen aimed directly at the autocratic tyrant and called the emperors from Qin Dynasty thieves. It is true that Tang Zhen went extremes when he criticized harshly or abusively all the emperors by the one word in spite of right and wrong. However, Tang Zhen revealed the nature of the autocratic tyranny which set the interest of the tyrant up over that of the common people. Tang Zhen believed that the monarch in an autocratic country possessed the paramount power and exercised dictatorship. As a result, order attributed to the monarch and disorder attributed more to the monarch. The tyrant was the cause of the tyranny. And the bureaucratic officials were one of the causes too. So Tang Zhen fiercely criticized such respects as the bureaucratic system, indifference to people’s poverty and corruption by taking one’s advantage. The feudal ethical code served the autocracy. The autocratic ruler maintained that the masses follow the ethical code aiming at keeping the good social order. Tang Zhen based on his sense of justice and integrity and criticized the feudal ethical code. He denied the feudal ethical code that the emperor was the headrope of the courtiers from the angle of equality of personality and social responsibility. He maintained that the emperor and the courtiers work in the interest of the people, and put the interest of the people in the first place. To be loyal to the emperor was based on the interest of the people, so the emperor must cherish the people and benefit the people. Therefore, he vehemently opposed the foolish loyalty of the courtiers. Tang Zhen reflected upon the code that the huaband was the headrope of the wife and expected that there was a mutual respect rather than a husband-centered pattern in conjugal relation, which attacked, to some degree, the feudal dogma of the superiority of the men over the women.Tang Zhen recognized many defects of the current politics, and attempted to achieve his political ideal by reform. Restraining the current political power was always the issue on which both the Chinese and the Western thinkers concentrated themselves. Thinkers in history made a great many efforts and assumptions, and Tang Zhen and other thinkers in the early Qing Dynasty were more concerned about the topic. In the eyes of Tang Zhen, order and disorder depended on the emperor, so the power of the emperor should be restrained and oriented towards the interest of the common people. Tang Zhen, like the other thinkers, was in hope of reducing the detriments to the masses by cutting down the over concentrated power of the emperor. To set up a prime minister was the consensus between Tang Zhen and Huang Zongxi, but Tang’s proposition was more daring than that of Huang. Tang Zhen hoped to restrain the power of the emperor by that of the prime minister, even displace it, a somewhat constitutional monarchy. In order to avoid the over concentrated power, Tang Zhen put forward a proposition that six courtiers undertook the duties at the same time. That is, Tang Zhen already touched on the point of system. Furthermore, Tang Zhen put forward to reform the official system and rectified the bureaucracy. He hoped to set up a bureaucratic institution which was condensed, incorruptible and helpful for the people. Tang Zhen’s proposition of "the rule by law" was in the interest of the common people too. He believed that law was of great importance in governing a country, that law was indispensible in the political life, that law should be made to serve the country and the people as well, and that law should be adjusted to be advantegous to the people accordingly. Moreover, he thought the law should severely punish those deceitful and corrupt courtiers, and even, he proposed that the tyrant be punished if he engaged in the brutal killing. But for the common people, Tang Zhen insisted on a lenient punishment. Tang Zhen’s proposition of "the rule by law" reflected, on the one hand, his recognition of the importance of law; on the other hand, his deep concern for the common people.Tang Zhen vehemently and fearlessly attacked the feudal autocratic monarchy, and he put forward a comparably reasonable proposition in political reform. In restraining the power of the monarch, Tang Zhen recognized the importance of dividing the power. His proposition in reforming the official system and rectifying the bureaucracy and "the rule by law" revealed his efforts in realizing his political ideal. From his proposition, we can see Tang’s core concept of value which was based on the people, served the people and valued the people life.Tang’s political critical idea was the essence of that era. However, the cause of his idea still derived from the tradition, thus, he could not release himself from the traditional restraints.We can see a lot of limitations of traditional thought from Tang Zhen’political critical thought. Although Tang Zhen reflected a lot upon the autocratic monarchy, what he criticized was the centralized power of the monarch and the tyranny of the tyrant, he considered unreasonabale political process, so his proposition in political reform could be only an illusion. Though, Tang Zhen and other thinkers thought over in restraining the power of the monarch by dividing it, they failed to find an efficient approach to restrain the monarch’s power. What they thought was how to divide the power within, and they did not try to seek a way from the outside. Their proposition could only prevent the power from bing over centralized to some degree. As to how to prevent the power from being used abusively, they had no good way. Also Tang Zhen and other traditional thinkers neglected a very important problem, that is, whether the autocratic monarch had the supreme power. If the monarch possessed the supreme power, then it could not be accomplished to reduce the power by setting up a prime minister and six courtiers undertaking duties at once, because such things could not be allowed by the autocratic monarch. As to whether it could be achieved to reform the bureaucratic system the proposition of "the rule by law" depended wholly upon the monarch’s personal likes and dislikes. Tang Zhen’s reformative proposition could only be an illusion if there was an autocratic monarchy and the monarch possessed the supreme power. The restraints could only be confined to moral principles. Although Tang Zhen and other traditional thinkers maintained that the monarch work in the interest of and for the convenience of the people, what they was concerned was the financial conditions of the people rather than the political rights. The people were still designed as the object of power, their interest was up to the monarch, and they were the object of being cherished and cultivated. Because traditional thinkers considered current politics only from the political process, so they must find cause from the person itself, so they could only repose their political reform in a monarch who had the highest virtue, and had keen intelligence and excellent judgement. What they expected was but for what a monarch of integrity could offer to the people. Finally, they slipped back to the expectation of a monarch who had the highest virtue and keen intelligence and excellent judgement.更多还原