【作者】 李佳；

【导师】 赵轶峰；

【作者基本信息】 东北师范大学 ， 中国古代史， 2011， 博士

【摘要】 君臣冲突,以臣对君主的政治批评为核心,君主常对这种政治批评采取抑制的态度。上述现象绵延不绝地发生于中国古代,进入帝制时代以后,君臣冲突的情状愈发激烈,群臣起而抗争皇帝的情形时有发生。在明代,君臣冲突多发,从时间线索上看,可分为如下三个阶段,洪武至天顺朝为第一阶段,此时期虽有钱唐、李时勉等人的强谏之举,但君臣冲突的整体声势尚且隐而不显。成化至万历朝为第二阶段,在这一阶段,臣或封还君命,或乞休明志,时有群臣“伏阙”之事,海瑞备棺而谏,雒于仁批评神宗酒色财气四病俱全,言辞尖锐。与之相对,明代廷杖之泛滥亦集中于此一时段。廷杖之罚,虽渊源于前代,然明代以其发生次数频繁,涉事人员众多,而更为引人关注。泰昌、天启与崇祯三朝构成第三阶段,在天启初群臣反对熹宗任用魏忠贤的活动中,前此百余年间君臣冲突的余韵,尚有展现。此后,臣对皇帝的抗争气势转弱,直至明亡。总体来看,明代君臣冲突的一般特征如下,第一,君臣冲突多发,大致与明代政治经历相始终。第二,君臣冲突情状激烈,“伏阙”次数之多,规模之大,廷杖之泛滥,构成凸显的时代特点。本文在澄清明代君臣冲突基本事实的基础上,解读其政治文化含义,主要回答了如下几个问题:君臣冲突发生的根本原因是什么?君臣冲突在何种意义上构成反思专制主义说的一种资源?何以明代君臣冲突在帝制政治史上较为凸显?明代政治文化的基本精神如何?第一,导致明代君臣冲突发生的最根本原因在于君臣双方政治理念存在分歧。在明代,士大夫与皇帝发生冲突,其政治诉求不限于统治上层,而在于对民生、民风问题的深刻关切,展现出关怀民间社会的价值取向。与之相对,明代皇帝虽亦有许多敬天保民的言论,但是通观其政治实践,却时常展现出皇帝至尊、朕即朝廷的理路,展现出一种私天下的取向。私天下观的实质为君本观。民本观与私天下观皆有其深厚的历史渊源,并不专属于某一身份角色,唯前者在抗争之臣的政治实践中表现的更为清晰,而私天下观在皇帝的政治实践中时有流露。第二,专制主义说,是中外学者对中国古代政治的一类看法,内涵复杂。此说含有如下要义:在中国古代,君主权力高度集中,强调臣对君主的服从,工具属性为臣这一政治角色的本质。需要明确的是,本文对专制主义说做出反思,是对这种说法与其描述对象二者之间是否相符的一种考察,而不是否认学者们关于专制主义本身的价值判定。在一般意义上说,当国家权力趋向个人化的专制时,皆不被认同。同时,这种反思也并不是认为臣这一政治角色的全部抗争都先验地具有合理性,此中利害,要回到事实层面做具体化的分析。本文对专制主义说的反思,是从君臣关系角度展开的。通过对明代君臣冲突的研究可见,明代士大夫具有较强的政治原则性。首先,在明代的君臣冲突中,“礼”被抗争之臣反复提及,在中国古人的观念中,“礼”与“理”二者相通,士大夫据“礼”成“理”,持守理在君上的政治价值观。理在君上观的背后支撑为天下为公观、法祖观与君德观,这三种观念在传统政治文化中具有着近于公理的地位。在士大夫的观念中,以将顺与匡救并举,为理想的臣道,并不唯以服从君主为是。其次,在明代君臣冲突中,臣这一政治角色展现出积极实践参政权的自觉意识。明代士大夫虽因职官不同,具体政治诉求不一,但就朝廷公共权力分配这一角度看去,都指向反对皇权专制极端化,主张君臣分职、共治天下。臣的这种诉求,并不是要求“虚君”,也远没有走到近代革命党人要求确立分权体制的程度,而是一种臣在文化层面对自身政治权力的正当性确认与有效性的期待。在确认明代士大夫具有较强的政治原则性的基础上,就可以看到,君臣之间存在着不以皇帝意愿而消弭的张力,当君权趋向绝对化的时候,总存在一种批评,士大夫构成批评者的主体,在一定程度上说,君臣是相互制约的关系。但是,士大夫的抗争作为约束皇权的一种政治自省模式,又存在着局限,缺乏制度层面的保障,对皇帝的影响有其限度,因此短时段视野下的君主权力或有扩大化情形,此为一种事实。总起来说,中国古代的政治具有相当复杂的纹理,这种复杂性尚有待于深入研究。第三,明代君臣冲突情状激烈,在帝制时代较为凸显,导致这一局面出现的原因与明代国家中枢权力结构设置,鼓励抗争的政治氛围孕育两方面内容关系密切。从对这一问题的回答中,亦可以体察明代政治文化的基本精神。首先,明代君臣冲突的激化与废除相制关系甚大。一方面,相对于明代以前的其他朝代,明代缺少皇帝与百官之间的权力缓冲机关。洪武朝以后,皇帝无宰相可以委任责成,士大夫群体的抗争更多地指向了皇帝的德行,施政举措等等。另一方面,明代内阁虽然位处中枢,然终究只能以“备顾问”的名目存在,在阁臣与皇帝间发生的几场冲突中,显现出提升内阁位势的政治诉求。明中叶以后,尤其是神宗清算张居正后,内阁权力往往随阁臣能否得君心,固君宠而沉浮不定,当阁臣以“私”的方式得君之际,则在一定程度上牺牲了言路的“公议”,于是,中、下级官员起而批评阁臣谀君,反对皇帝借由阁臣依违,行独断之政。总起来说,各部门官员争取扩大自身参政权的诉求皆指向皇帝,反对皇权专制极端化。因此,从一定程度上说,晚明君臣冲突现象的凸显,也是明代废除相制后,国家行政中枢内部权责失序的一种反映。其次,对谏臣的赞誉,对建言获罪官员的“起用”要求与同情,对“谏”的正当性的认同等等,以及不计利害,不恤生死的自陈,明代士大夫清晰地表达了对以谏为核心的君臣冲突的肯定态度。这些积极评价君臣冲突的言论,既反映出明代政治文化鼓励政治批评的基本精神,复又弥漫成一种引导建言的政治氛围,士大夫浸润其中,于抗争之事相互援引标榜,视谏诤为实现自身政治价值的重要途径,前朝士大夫的谏君之举,复又对后来士大夫构成激励,风气流转,愈至浓厚,终于呈现为明代士大夫建言之活跃态势。鼓励政治批评是明代政治文化的基本精神,具有如下三方面要点,第一,鼓励政治批评的言论普遍存在着,这反映出明代的政治舆论环境其实是较为自由宽松的;第二,从长时段的视野下看去,政治舆论的主导权在臣,而不在君。第三,那些鼓励政治批评言论的得出,所依据的尺度是道德化的。本文的延展结论如下,中国的帝制政治,主要是由皇帝政治与士大夫政治相互作用而成的一种独特政治模式,帝制政治不等于皇帝政治。士大夫政治并不具有绝对的合理性,它有着较为理想化的政治愿景,在有些历史时段展现的较为充分,有些历史时段则隐而不显。总体来看,士大夫政治在文化层面的积极价值有三,暨追求实现以民为本的政治目标,鼓励不同位势政治主体间的互动,注重政治道德的养成与自律。更多还原

【Abstract】 Centered with the political critics of officials that are often suppressed by the monarch, conflicts between the monarch and officials are common in Chinese ancient times. It became severer while entering the imperial times, with grouped officials struggling against the regality.Conflicts between the monarch and officials in Ming dynasty could be divided into three distinguished periods. The first is from reign of Emperor Hongwu to Tianshun, in which, the conflicts were not drastic though strong exhortations were made to the emperors by Qian Tang, Li Shimian and etc. The second stage is from the reign of Emperor Chenghua to Wanli, in which period, officials either rejected emperors’orders or resigned. Memorials to the throne often occurred. For example, Hairui pledged his life to make exhortation to the throne; Luo Yuren criticized Emperor Wanli sharply for his lusts for alcohol, beauties,money and irritability. Accordingly, flogging at court, though originated from the former dynasty, is frequented in this period and deserves more attention. The reigns of Emperor Taichang, Tianqi and Chongzhen are the third period. In the wake of officials’exhortation against the employment of eunuch Wei Zhongxian, the tone of conflicts still continued, and weakened later until the collapse of Ming dynasty. Characteristics of the conflicts in Ming dynasty are as follows: first, the frequency of conflicts is in accordance with the political experience of Ming court; second, the severity of conflicts, the frequency of memorials to the throne and flogging at court are the prominent features of Ming period.While clarifying the historical facts of conflicts between emperors and officials in Ming court and interpreting the political and cultural implication, this article also responds to the following questions: what is the root cause for the conflicts? In what sense conflicts between emperors and officials constitute the source for the profound consideration of the despotism theory? Why the conflicts in Ming period are comparatively more prominent in the political history of imperialism? What are the fundamental spirits of political culture in Ming dynasty?First, the root cause for the conflicts in Ming period is the divergence between emperors’political ideas and officials’. Officials’political appeals concerned more about civilians’livelihood and folk custom, instead of limiting to the high-level circle, reflecting their care of civil society. In contrast, though with the claim of worshiping the heaven and protecting civilians, emperors’political practices always follow the logic of“emperor is the highest, emperor represents the court”, revealing the orientation of privatizing the world. The intrinsic feature of privatizing the world is emperor-oriented. Both people-centered and monarch-centered conceptions are highly rooted in historical China, not exclusively endowed for certain social ranks, though the former is more distinct in the political practice of struggling officials while the latter can be seen in emperors’.Second, the logic of despotism theory, which is taken as the spirit of political culture of imperial China by many scholars, points toward the conclusion of the over-centralization of monarchical power, the obedience of ministers and their nature as political tools. It should make clear that, other than a denial of the value judgment of despotism itself, this article simply discusses this theory and verify whether it reflects Chinese imperial politics truthfully. In a common sense, it is not acknowledged by modern scholars when the state power goes toward individualized despotism. Meanwhile, this article doesn’t consider all officials’struggles are transcendentally reasonable, which needs detailed analysis on the factual level.From the perspective of the relation between the emperor and officials, the theory of despotism is discussed. It can be revealed that, officials in Ming period hold strong political principles. It is evidenced in two points. The first is, officials who made stands against emperors always incited“Common Customs”(Li,礼), which is interlinked with“Reason”(Li,理) in Chinese society. Scholar-bureaucrats reasoned with emperors on the basis of“common customs”, sticking to the political value that“Reason is above Emperor”. The concept of“Reason is above Emperor”is supported by concepts of“All under heaven is equal”,“Sticking to ancestors’precepts”and“Morality of emperor”, of which the position is parallel to the generally acknowledged truths in traditional political culture. In officials’opinion, the ideal manner of officials is to combine obedience and correction of emperors’errors together, instead of only obedience only. Second, officials’political role reflects their self-consciousness of active involvement in political practice. Officials’political pursuits in Ming court are varied according to their offices. However, from the perspective of the deployment of public power in court, they all oppose the extremity of autocratic monarchy, and assert the separated power and the shared governance of the monarch and officials. Officials didn’t claim for“puppet emperors”, or the decentralized authority system pursued by early modern revolutionary parties, but rather the legitimacy of their political power and expectation of the effectiveness. In general, officials in Ming court show their obedience to the emperors while reserve their own principles in great degree.After confirming the strong political principles of Ming officials, it can be reflected that, a tension exists between the two parties, emperors and officials, and goes beyond the control of emperors’wills. There are always critics from ministers when the regality goes toward absolute. Certain mutual restriction is placed on the relationship between the emperor and ministers. However, restriction on the regality by officials, which can be taken as a political mode of self-examination, is lack of systematic guarantee. Besides, the effect is limited. In this way, it is evident that, the regality might be exaggerated from a short-run perspective. Chinese imperial politics as a whole is complicated, and further study is expected.Third, the prominent phenomena of conflicts in imperial times are closely related to the structure of the state central power in Ming period and the political atmosphere of encouraging exhortation. The fundamental spirits of political culture in Ming period can also be concluded from this third answer:To begin with, the intensification of conflicts between emperors and officials is greatly related to the abolishment of the office of prime minister. In one way, there is no buffer between the emperor’s powers and officials’. Exhortations of the official group turned toward emperor’s virtues and political measures and etc. after the reign of Emperor Hongwu, since the office of prime minster was absent. In another way, though the Imperial Grand Secretary was positioned in center of power system, it only played the role of“consultancy”, though the authority of Imperial Grand Secretary was proposed several times to be improved in the conflicts. Since middle Ming, especially after Emperor Wanli punished Zhang Juzheng severely, the power of Imperial Grand Secretary relied heavily on emperors’favor. When the Imperial Grand Secretary won the favor of the emperor in a“private”way with the sacrifice of“public discussion”, all officials in middle and low levels criticized their flatteries, fighting against the sacrifice of officials’political principles for the purpose of supporting emperor’s arbitrary politics. In general, officials in different imperial ministries try to enlarge their political power by going against the extremity of the regality. For this reason, the prominence of the conflicts between emperors and officials is a reflection of the disorder of rights and responsibilities in central administrative system.Also, official’s praises for exhorters, appeals for reinstating officials who were dismissed for exhortation and the recognition of the legitimacy of the exhortation, these entire express officials’positive attitude toward the conflicts centered with their exhortations. Their positive remarks on the conflicts, not only reflect the fundamental spirits of political culture, that is, the encouragement of political critics, but also create an atmosphere of inducing exhortations, in which officials are indulged. Encouraged by exhortations to the throne in former reigns , which contributes to the active state of Ming officials’exhortation in latter times, officials praise mutually for their resistance against the emperor, and take exhortation to the throne as the key approach to achieve their own political values.Thus, the fundamental spirits of Ming political culture is the encouragement of political critics, of which is composed three points: first, views to encourage critics is popular, showing the free political environment for public opinions; second, from long-run perspective, the power of political public opinions is dominated by officials; third, views that encourage political critics take virtue as the yardstick.The article further concludes that, the imperial politics of china is a unique political mode established by the interactive influence of the politics of emperors’and officials’. In addition, imperial politics is not equal to emperors’politics. Scholar-bureaucrats’ politics doesn’t own absolute legitimacy. It has idealized political vision, which is embodied prominently in certain periods while implicit in other periods. Scholar-bureaucrats’ politics has three positive effects, that is, the pursuit of the civilian-oriented political aim, the encouragement of interaction among different political subjects and the emphasis on the cultivation and self-discipline of political virtue.更多还原