论明代的君臣冲突

发布时间：2018-05-02 10:18

本文选题：明代 + 君臣冲突　；参考：《东北师范大学》2011年博士论文

【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。
[Abstract]:The clash of monarchy and courtiers was the core of the political criticism of the monarchs, and the monarchy often took an attitude of restraining this political criticism. The above phenomena occurred continuously in ancient China. After the age of monarchy, the love of the clashes between the monarchy and the officials became more and more intense, and the courtiers fought against the emperor.
In the Ming Dynasty, the clashes between the monarch and the courtiers were more frequent. From the time clue, they could be divided into three stages: the first stage of the Hongwu to the Tien Shun Dynasty, while the Tang Dynasty was rich in the Tang Dynasty and the strong advice of Li Shimian and others, but the overall momentum of the clash of monarch and courtiers was still hidden and not obvious. In the case of Hai Rui's coffin and the coffin, he criticized the four diseases of the God Zong and his words were sharp. The three dynasty constituted the third stage, and in the early days of the early days of the emperor's opposition to the appointment of Wei Zhongxian, the rhyme of the clash between monarch and minister in more than a hundred years was unfolded. After that, his courtiers' resistance to the emperor turned weak until it died. In general, the general characteristics of the clashes in the Ming Dynasty were as follows: first, the clashes between the emperors and the officials were more frequent, roughly with the political experiences of the Ming Dynasty. All the time, second, the conflict between monarch and minister is intense, the number of "volts" is large, the scale is large, and the spread of Zhang sticks is a prominent feature of the times.
On the basis of clarifying the basic facts of the conflict between the monarchies and the officials in the Ming Dynasty, this article answers the following questions: what is the fundamental reason for the occurrence of the conflict between the monarch and the officials? In what sense does the clash of the emperor and the officials constitute a resource for the rethinking of the dictatorship? He Yiming's clash of emperors and ministers is more prominent in the political history of the monarchy? What is the basic spirit of the generation of political culture?
First, the most fundamental reason for the conflict between the monarch and the officials in the Ming Dynasty lies in the disagreement between the political ideas of the two sides. In the Ming Dynasty, the conflict between the scholar officials and the emperor, the political appeal of the Ming Dynasty was not limited to the ruling upper level, but the profound concern of the people's livelihood and the question of the people's style, showing the value orientation of the Guan Huaimin society. There are many words for the people to protect the people, but through their political practice, they often show the emperor's supreme respect and the way of the court, which shows the orientation of the private world. The essence of the view of the private world is the monarch. In practice, performance is clearer and private world view is revealed in the emperor's political practice.
Second, despotism is a kind of Chinese and foreign scholar's view of Chinese ancient politics and complex connotation. It contains the following Essentials: in ancient China, the power of the monarchy is highly concentrated, the minister's obedience to the monarchy, the nature of the political role of the minister, and the attribute of the tool. It needs to be clear that this article is a reflection on the theory of autocracy. In a general sense, when the state power tends to individualized autocracy, it is not recognized in the general sense of the value determination of the autocracy itself. At the same time, this reflection does not mean that all the opposition to the political role of the minister is apriori. Rationality, the interest, must be returned to the factual level to make a concrete analysis.
The reflection on the theory of autocracy is from the perspective of the relationship between the monarch and the courtiers. Through the study of the conflict between the monarchy and the officials in the Ming Dynasty, the scholar bureaucrats in the Ming Dynasty have strong political principles. First, in the clashes of the Ming Dynasty, the "rite" was repeatedly mentioned by the courtiers of the resistance, and in the Chinese ancient people's ideas, the "Rites" and "Li" were interlinked and the scholars were big. According to the "rite" as "Li", he holds the political values of the emperor in the emperor. He supports the view of "heaven and the heaven" behind the emperor's view of the emperor, the concept of French ancestor and the view of virtue, these three ideas have the position of near axiom in the traditional political culture. Secondly, in the conflict of the emperor and the courtiers in the Ming Dynasty, the political role of the courtiers showed the conscious consciousness of the active practice of political participation. Although the literati and officialdom in the Ming Dynasty had different specific political appeals because of their different official duties, they all pointed to the opposition to the extreme end of the imperial autocracy, advocated the division of the monarchy and the ministers, and ruled the world. It is not a demand for the "virtual monarch", nor is it far from the degree of the modern revolutionary party's demands for the establishment of a decentralization system, but a kind of expectation for the validity of the political power of the courtiers in the cultural layer.
On the basis of confirming the strong political principle of the literati doctor of the Ming Dynasty, we can see that there is a tension between the emperors and the officials, which is not eliminated by the will of the emperor. When the monarchy tends to be absolute, there is always a kind of criticism, and the scholar officials constitute the subject of the critic. In a certain range, the monarchy is the relation of mutual restriction. As a political self-examination mode of restricting the imperial power, the struggle of the husband has limitations, lack of institutional security and the limit to the influence of the emperor, so it is a fact that the power of the monarchy in the short period of view or the situation of enlargement is a fact. Generally speaking, the ancient Chinese politics has quite complex texture, and this complexity still exists. It needs to be studied in depth.
Third, the clash in the Ming Dynasty is intense, which is more prominent in the era of monarchy. The reasons for this situation are closely related to the establishment of the central power structure in the Ming Dynasty and the political atmosphere of the struggle to encourage the two aspects. From the answer to this question, the basic spirit of the political culture of the Ming Dynasty can also be observed. First, the monarchy and the Minister of the Ming Dynasty On the one hand, relative to the other dynasties before the Ming Dynasty, there was a lack of power buffer between the emperor and the hundreds of officials in the Ming Dynasty. After the Hong Wu Dynasty, the emperor could be appointed without the prime minister. The struggle of the group of scholars and officialdom more pointed to the virtue of the emperor, the measures of administration, and so on. On the other hand, the Ming Dynasty cabinet. Although the position of the center, but in the end can only be in the presence of "Advisor", in the several conflicts between the Komen and the emperor, showing the political appeal to enhance the position of the cabinet. After the middle of Ming Dynasty, especially after the liquidation of Zhang Juzheng, the power of the cabinet often goes with the king's heart. On the occasion of the gentleman, he sacrificed the "public opinion" to a certain extent. Therefore, the officials of the middle and lower rank criticized the courtien flattery, and opposed the emperor's dictatorship by his courtiers. In general, the demands of all departments to strive for the expansion of their power of participation were all directed to the emperor and against the extreme despotism of the imperial power. Therefore, to a certain extent, to a certain extent. The phenomenon of conflict between emperors and ministers in late Ming Dynasty is also a reflection of the internal power and responsibility disorder of the state administrative center after the abolition of the phase system in the Ming Dynasty.
Secondly, the praise of the admonition officials, the "starting" requirements and sympathy for the convicted officials, the recognition of the justification of the "admonition" and so on, as well as the self-determination of the clashes of the monarch and the officials who are at the core of the admonition, and the literati and officials of the Ming Dynasty clearly express the positive attitude towards the conflict between the monarch and the officials who are at the core of the admonition. The political culture encouraged the basic spirit of political criticism, and permeated into a political atmosphere guiding the construction of the words. At last, it shows the active trend of Ming Dynasty's advice.
Encouraging political criticism is the basic spirit of political culture in the Ming Dynasty. There are three main points in the political culture of the Ming Dynasty. First, the general opinion of encouraging political criticism is common, which reflects that the political public opinion environment in the Ming Dynasty is actually more free and loose; second, from a long view, the dominant power of political opinion is in the courtier, but not the third, those of the political opinion. The encouragement of political criticism is based on the moralization.
The conclusion of this article is that China's imperial politics is mainly a unique political pattern formed by the interaction between Emperor's politics and the politics of the scholar bureaucrats. The monarchy is not equal to the emperor's politics. The politics of the scholar bureaucrats is not absolutely reasonable. It has a more ideal political vision and is more full in some historical periods. In general, the positive value of the scholar bureaucrat politics at the cultural level is three, and the political goal is to pursue the people oriented, encourage the interaction between the different political subjects, and pay attention to the formation and self-discipline of the political morality.

【学位授予单位】：东北师范大学
【学位级别】：博士
【学位授予年份】：2011
【分类号】：K248

【参考文献】