頁籤選單縮合
題 名 | 漢初楚國無郡論--戰國秦漢郡縣制個案研究之二=There Was No Commandery in Chu Kingdom during Early Western Han Dynasty: Case Two on Commanderies and Counties of Early China |
---|---|
作 者 | 游逸飛; | 書刊名 | 新史學 |
卷 期 | 26:4 2015.12[民104.12] |
頁 次 | 頁1-78 |
分類號 | 622 |
關鍵詞 | 郡縣制; 諸侯王國; 璽印封泥; 徐州楚王陵; 北洞山; 獅子山; Commanderies and counties; Kingdom; Seal and lute; Chu king's tomb in Xuzhou; Beidongshan; Shizishan; |
語 文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 本文首先據漢初楚國的政區沿革,確定北洞山與獅子山楚王陵為第一、二代楚王墓,時代屬於漢初。繼而指出漢初楚王陵見有兩百餘方中央與縣級官印,並未隨葬郡級官印、封泥,出土數千方漢初楚國封泥亦無郡級,這些現象並非偶然。排除諸種可能性後,漢初楚國無郡論應是目前漢初楚國未見郡級官印、封泥的最合理解釋。漢初諸侯王國有郡的歷史書寫,來自於漢廷的傳世文獻,只能反映諸侯王國始封的情況,不能反映諸侯王國之後的變遷。漢初諸侯王國或有郡、或無郡,必須嚴格檢討傳世與出土文獻的時代及地域性,才能得出更準確的結論。學界過去認為秦漢郡、縣普置於疆域之內,其實漢家天下或有郡、或無郡,只有縣乃普天之下共有。相較於封建制,郡縣制一般被視為有利於中央集權。然而漢初諸侯王國感到郡制無益於王國自身的中央集權時,廢郡之舉也就提上日程。雖然漢初諸侯王國廢郡、無郡只是局部、特殊的現象,但當郡縣化中央集權的歷史主流已幾成教條時,揭示廢郡、無郡的現象,探索當時的逆流、伏流,可能有助於我們反思郡縣制的本質並非中央集權的工具,郡縣制的發展亦可能走向地方分權。漢初楚國無郡論,所論雖小,卻可能帶給我們新的視野,重新理解秦漢地方政制的性質。 |
英文摘要 | According to the Chu kingdom’s regional administrative history, we identified the Beidongshan and the Shizishan tomb owners as the first and second Chu kings during the early Western Han dynasty. More than two hundred official seals and thousands of lutes from central government and the county have been found in tombs, but no official seals and lutes of the commandery of the Chu Kingdom during the early Western Han dynasty. This is not a coincidence. After excluding other possibilities, most reasonable explanation is that there were no commanderies in the Chu kingdom at this time. Such evidence as there is came from historical records of the Han central government, which reflected only the beginning, but not the subsequent development of each kingdom. We must critically review the time and region of the sources, in order to get a more accurate understanding of whether there were in fact commanderies in kingdoms during this period. Scholars have believed that the Qin and Han central governments generally set up commanderies and counties in All-under-Heaven. Actually, the Han central government did not set up commanderies but only counties in All-under-Heaven. Compared to the feudal system, commanderies and counties are generally considered beneficial to centralization. However, the Han kings did not find that commanderies were beneficial to centralization, and so they abolished commanderies. That commanderies and counties are generally considered beneficial to centralization is simply post facto dogma. Although the kings’ abolition of commanderies was a localized and specific phenomenon, it helps us to rethink the nature of commanderies and counties not as a tool of centralization but precisely a potential tool of decentralization. This topic is small, but it may foster a new vision to reinterpret the nature of local government during Qin and Han dynasties. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。