英文摘要
|
In formulating Ming law, Ming Taizu strengthened the "take kinship into account" feature of traditional law into one of "showing partiality for kin." This was given concrete shape in the August Ming Ancestral Injunctions (Huang Ming zuxun 皇明祖訓), which significantly increased the power of imperial relatives; as their numbers multiplied, this created a burden for Ming society. The judicial procedures adopted for imperial clansmen who broke the law were different from ordinary trials. Moreover, the Great Ming Code (Da Ming lü 大明律) and the Itemized Regulations for Trying Criminal Matters (Wenxing tiaoli 問刑條例) were not the judicial basis for conviction; and even the August Ming Ancestral Injunctions, which were intended to regulate the behaviour of imperial clansmen, were rather hazy. The form of punishment was also separate from the standard "Five Punishments" (wuxing 五刑). Thus their situation was quite special and uncertain. In the Ming dynasty, those of the imperial house who offended against the law were referred to as "criminal clan[smen]" (zuizong 罪宗). Apart from a very small number who were guilty of heinous crimes or plotting to rebel and were either ordered to commit suicide or put to death, most crimes were punished with loss of rank, loss of emolument, or imposed seclusion in the Royal Prison (gaoqiang 高牆, "High Walls") or other special compounds (xianzhai 閒宅, "Idle Compounds"). The most common serious punishment was imposed seclusion in the Royal Prison in Fengyang. This was a special prison dedicated to holding criminal clansmen that had been set up in the mid-Ming; later, as the number of criminal clansmen and their dependents increased, "Idle Compounds" were created to expand the space for imprisonment. Scholarly attention has focused on the former and said relatively little about the establishment of the latter. The appearance of the Idle Compounds not only reflects how common long-term imprisonment of criminal clansmen had become, but also the growing strictness of "imperial kin seclusion" and the strengthening of the bans on imperial kin leaving their fiefs. This article focuses on the administration of the Royal Prison at Fengyang and examines two major questions: the design and plan for the Royal Prison system and the long-term imprisonment of a rising number of "criminal clansmen" that led to its space being insufficient. It also discusses the relationship between the precedent of the 32nd year of the Jiajing 嘉靖reign (1553) associated with the creation of the "Idle Compounds" and the strengthening of the prohibition on imperial kin leaving their fiefs. Apart from furthering the discussion on the administration of the Royal Prison, it looks at how the court dealt with the handling and release of criminal clansmen, the resolution of the issue of long-term imprisonment and their mutual relationship and influence. It aims to understand better the complex relations between the Ming emperors and their imperial kin: on the one hand, they had to take into consideration the principle of "partiality for kin" (qinqin 親親) but on the other there was the long-term imprisonment of criminal clansmen, who were left to languish in the Royal Prison. This produced a contradictory, tense, and antithetical predicament.
|
参考文献
|
-
吳緝華(1967)。明代皇室中的洽和與對立。中央研究院歷史語言研究所集刊,37(上),323-353。
連結:
-
(1994).四庫全書存目叢書.濟南:齊魯書社.
-
(1992).稀見中國地方志彙刊.北京:中國書店.
-
(1983).景印文淵閣四庫全書.臺北:臺灣商務印書館.
-
(1995).續修四庫全書.上海:上海古籍出版社.
-
(1997).續修四庫全書.上海:上海古籍出版社.
-
(1988).北京圖書館古籍珍本叢刊.北京:書目文獻出版社.
-
(1968).中國方略叢書.臺北:成文出版社.
-
(1988).北京圖書館古籍珍本叢刊.北京:書目文獻出版社.
-
(明)王世貞(1965).弇山堂別集.臺北:臺灣學生書局.
-
(明)李廷機(1970).李文節集.臺北:文海出版社.
-
(明)李東陽,(明)申時行(重修)(1976).大明會典.臺北:新文豐.
-
(明)沈朝陽(1969).皇明嘉隆兩朝聞見紀.臺北:臺灣學生書局.
-
(明)沈德符(1997).萬曆野獲編.北京:中華書局.
-
(明)袁文新(纂修),(明)柯仲炯(纂修)(1985).鳳書.臺北:成文出版社.
-
(明)張良知(2013).中都儲志.重慶:西南師範大學出版社.
-
(明)張瀚,盛冬鈴(點校)(1985).松窗夢語.北京:中華書局.
-
(明)陳子龍(選輯)(2014).明經世文編.北京:中華書局.
-
(明)曾惟誠(1985).帝鄉紀略.臺北:成文出版社.
-
(明)劉若愚(1985).酌中志.臺北:新文豐.
-
(清)孫承澤(1980).春明夢餘錄.臺北:大立出版社.
-
(清)張廷玉(1978).明史.臺北:鼎文書局.
-
中央研究院歷史語言研究所(輯校)(1964).明實錄.臺北:中央研究院歷史語言研究所.
-
王劍英(1992).明中都.北京:中華書局.
-
司徒琳, Lynn A.,李榮慶(譯),郭孟良(譯),卞師軍(譯),魏林(譯),嚴壽澂(校訂)(1992).南明史(1644-1662).上海:上海古籍出版社.
-
伯來拉, Galeote,克路士, Gaspar)、拉達(Martin de Rada)著,Charles Ralph Boxer 編注,何高濟譯(2003).南明行紀.臺北:臺灣古籍出版社.
-
吳豔紅(2014)。明代宗藩司法管理中的分別議處──從《魯府招》說起。中國史研究,2014(2),149-173。
-
周致元(1997)。初探“高牆"。故宮博物院院刊,1997(2),23-30。
-
陳學霖(2010)。明太祖對皇子的處置:秦王朱樉罪行與明初政治。明太祖的治國理念及其實踐,香港:
-
黃培(2005)。黃培明代的高牆制度。中國文化研究所學報,44,61-80。
-
黃彰健(編)(1979).明代律例彙編.臺北:中央研究院歷史語言研究所.
-
楊一凡(編),蔣達濤(編)(1994).中國珍稀法律典籍集成.北京:科學出版社.
-
楊一凡(編),蔣達濤(編)(1994).中國珍稀法律典籍集成.北京:科學出版社.
-
雷炳炎(2003)。明代中期罪宗庶人歸類論析。湖南社會科學,2003(2),145-148。
-
雷炳炎(2003)。明代中期罪宗庶人管理問題初探。船山學刊,2003(1),96-100。
-
雷炳炎(2014).明代宗藩犯罪問題研究.北京:中華書局.
-
瞿同祖(1994).中國法律與中國社會.臺北:里仁書局.
-
懷效鋒(1988)。明代宗藩的犯罪與處罰。政法論壇:中國政法大學學報,1988(3),70-76。
|