四方、天下、郡國──周秦漢天下觀的變革與發展

The Four Corners, All Under Heaven, Commanderies and Kingdoms: Transformation and Development of Views of Tianxia in Ancient China

游逸飛(Yi-Fei You)

指導教授 ： 邢義田

國立臺灣大學/文學院/歷史學研究所/碩士(2009年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2009.01057

摘要

本文希望揭示天下觀在周秦漢時期的變革與發展。

　　第一章先界定「天下觀」、「天下秩序」、「天下政體」等後來幾章會使用的研究概念。本文所定義的天下觀既非宇宙觀，也不是世界觀，而是以「天下」（即當時人認識的人間世界）為出發點的政治觀念與心態；當時人藉以治理整個天下的政治制度就是天下政體；以整個天下為舞臺所上演的治亂興衰就是天下秩序。該章繼而回顧中國、日本、歐美學界的天下觀研究，指出今日的天下觀研究已不應拘泥於「天下」究竟是「中國」？抑或「世界」之爭？也不應認為自己研究的時代可以輕易代表傳統兩千年天下觀的本質。今日應該將天下一辭的意義視為可流動的，重建歷代人言說天下一辭的語境，了解天下一辭為何被使用。

　　第二章根據《尚書》、《詩經》、甲骨、金文等材料，指出「四方」一辭流行於西周，此時「天下」一辭很少出現、意義又與「四方」相當，故研究西周不宜用天下觀的研究術語，應該用「四方觀」。四方一辭具有區隔內外的功能，為周天子與諸侯之間提供清楚的界限，建立四方政體、奠定四方秩序。四方觀不限於差序格局，能與成熟的國家政體相配合，是成熟的世界觀念。受商人冊封的周人，可以自居西土，在商人所建立的四方秩序安身；又可伺機而動、取大邑商而代之，以洛邑（成周）為四方之中。周人取代商人為四方之中後，從屬於周的諸侯便須自居四方，承認周人居於四方之中；西周中晚期的金文裡不再見到周人來自西土之說，反映周人漸漸不提祖先曾為西土之人，似乎是一種地域式的結構性失憶。

　　第三章利用電子資料庫檢索傳世文獻與出土文獻，確證「天下」一辭流行於戰國秦漢，使用遠比「四方」頻繁。並進一步指出天下一辭流行的原因是因為春秋戰國政治、社會變革，四方觀語境崩解，戰國諸子、君王注意到天下一辭字面上不具有區隔內外的意義，可以消弭四方一辭的內外界限，對外包容其他列國、適於用來重建紛亂的政治秩序，天下一辭也因而大為流行。「溫人之周」故事、先秦諸子好引用《小雅．北山》的「溥天之下，莫非王土；率土之濱，莫非王臣」，兩者都反映天下一辭有助於建立新的天下秩序。「天下」一辭普行於秦漢朝廷統治的領域、為當時識字者所熟習、深入人們的日常生活之中，其內涵與用法為當時人共享，不限於統治階層，「天下」遂成為兩千年來最流行的疆域稱謂，天下觀也成為兩千年來中國最具影響力的世界觀。

　　第四章繼續討論天下一辭的包容性如何有助於秦漢天下秩序的建立。秦始皇君臣在推行政策的詔令裡通常會使用天下一辭，將甫平定的東方六國納入統治疆域，此時天下為狹義，乃「中國」之意。但宣揚功德的刻石中秦朝君臣又會使用廣義的天下，也就是普天之下，來包容四夷。雖然秦朝君臣注意到普天之下與現實疆域之間的差距，而用「北過大夏」一辭將兩者的矛盾模糊化；但整體而言秦朝君臣因理想與現實之間的差距而產生的無奈與羞辱之感，應當不會很強。漢初國力遠不如秦，只得隨時勢調整對外關係；此時天下一辭的彈性徹底展現，漢朝既可將南越納入中國與四夷的天下秩序內，又可承認漢與匈奴同為天下之中的兩國，更可將西南夷來貢視為天子「修文德以來之」的展現。但天下一辭的意涵亦非為政者可任意捏塑，秦漢「天下一家」的理念似只用於對內一統，無人以此為藉口侵略四夷。漢初朝廷承認諸侯王國的獨立地位，建立多中心的天下政體，用天下一辭將諸侯王國納入天下秩序之中。但多中心的天下秩序終究不穩定，天下一辭消弭內外界限的特性與講求精確的官僚制扞格不入。漢朝的天下秩序、天下政體、天下觀仍須進一步完善，徐偃、終軍故事即其變遷的反映。

　　第五章討論漢廷為了追求更完美的天下秩序，必須重建封建制、鞏固中央集權，創建更完善的天下政體。其關鍵措施為改革王國制度：建立「郡國雙軌制」，將王國降低到郡的層級，使漢朝地方行政制度達成「分工性分權」的目標；用更完善的封建制規範天子、諸侯王等各種身分等級，並區分王國的行政官吏與家內官吏。多中心的天下秩序從此消失，以漢天子為中心的天下政體進一步確立。天下政體更加完善，也影響天下觀變遷。透過資料庫檢索與文獻校勘，我們可以發現漢初流行用天下一辭稱呼漢朝的疆域，郡國、郡諸侯等辭將郡與諸侯王國並列，在漢初並不合於現實，這種較為精細的疆域稱謂並不統一、也不常見；但西漢中葉郡國雙軌制奠定以後，郡國一辭開始流行。郡國一辭有利於官僚制的發展，使漢廷政令能夠更有效傳達、實踐於「天下」，更清楚規範漢朝疆域、進一步建立中央與地方的區別。

　　第六章結語則認為「內與外」始終是中國政治的關鍵課題。天下一辭因四方一辭無法對外包容而興，又因字面無法區隔內外而須分裂為廣狹二義：狹義的天下對內治理中國，廣義的天下對外綏服四夷。但廣狹二義又須進一步區隔內外：廣義的天下藉中國與四夷區隔出內外，狹義的天下則藉王畿與郡國區隔內外。各時代的天下觀如何區隔內外是值得繼續研究的線索。

關鍵字

天下觀 ； 天下政體 ； 天下秩序 ； 普天之下 ； 《小雅．北山》 ； 封建 ； 諸侯王國

並列摘要

The aim of this paper is to bring to light the transformation and development of a uniquely Chinese weltanschauung, ‘tian-xia view’ (often translated as ‘all-under-heaven view’), during the Zhou, Qin, and Han Dynasties.
The first chapter begins by defining some specialized terms to be discussed later in the paper, such as ‘tian-xia view,’ ‘tian-xia order,’ and ‘tian-xia form of government.’ The definition of ‘tia-xia view’ used in this paper is not equivalent to a ‘universal’ or ‘world’ outlook, but is instead a political philosophy based on the concept of ‘tian-xia,’ understood to be the world of men as conceived by people of the period. Adherents understood tian-xia form of government to be a political system for governing all-under-heaven; tian-xia order was thought of as the balance between pacification and disorder, the waxing and waning of power on the political stage that was all-under-heaven. This chapter then summarizes previous scholarship regarding the concept of tian-xia from China, Japan, and the West. I will argue that we should no longer limit the scope of research to the question of whether tian-xia denoted “China” or “the world,” nor should we carelessly assume that the accepted interpretation of tian-xia view during any one period is representative of the entire history of its use. It is preferable to view the meaning of the term tian-xia as shifting. In order to understand why it was employed, we should begin by reconstructing the lingual context in which the term has been used throughout the ages.
The second chapter focuses on the use of the term si-fang (‘the four regions,’ East, South, West, and North) in the Shu-Jing, Shi-Jing, oracle bone scripts, and bronze inscriptions. The term was at the height of its use during the Western Zhou Dynasty, a time when tian-xia rarely appeared. Although its meaning is comparable to tian-xia, terminology associated with tian-xia should be avoided when discussing the period of the Western Zhou; ‘si-fang view’ should be used instead. The term si-fang connotes a delimiting of the inner sphere from the outer, clarifying the boundary between the king, seated in a central region, and his feudal lords, occupying the surrounding four regions of the north, south, east, and west, thus establishing a ‘si-fang system of government’ and a ‘si-fang order’. Si-fang view was not, however, limited to concepts of classification and demarcation; combined with a mature system of government, it can be considered a mature worldview. The kingdom of Zhou, having been enfeoffed by the Shang, were able to establish themselves in the western region as part of the si-fang order constructed by the Shang. There, the Zhou could bide their time until Da-Yi-Shang, the Shang capital city, could be replaced by Luo-Yi, the Zhou capital, as the center of si-fang. After the Zhou succeeded in overcoming the Shang, the feudal lords subordinate to the Zhou had no choice but to concede that the Zhou now occupied the center of si-fang, whereas they in fact dwelt in si-fang. Descriptions of the Zhou as a people from the western region are absent from the bronze inscriptions of the middle to late Western Zhou period; by gradually ceasing to portray their ancestors as westerns, a structural realignment of geography was achieved.
In the third chapter, I examine the search results of electronic databases of both the received canon and archaeological materials, concluding that in writings from the Warring States period, the Qin, and the Han, the term tian-xia appears far more frequently than the term si-fang. The reason for tian-xia’s newfound popularity lies in, I believe, the political and societal transformation of the Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods. The feudal lords and kings of the Warring States period became aware of the term’s suitability for re-establishing political order from the chaos of their time; tian-xia did not connote a demarcation of the inner sphere from the outer, and could be employed to incorporate the various states into a new polity. A couplet from the Bei-Shan (Xiao-Ya) chapter of the Shi-Jing is often quoted in the writings of the pre-Qin schools of thought: “Under the wide heaven [tian-xia], all is the king's land. Within the sea-boundaries of the land, all are the king's servants.” This couplet, which also appears in the story of “Wen Ren Zhi Zhou,” reflects the term’s ability to help establish a new “all-under-heaven order.” During the Qin and Han, the term tian-xia was not only common at court and amongst the political class, but was familiar to every literate person, penetrating deep into the consciousness of the people and having great influence on their lives. Thus, tian-xia became the most accepted denotation for the emperor’s domain, and tian-xia view became the most influential worldview in China for two thousand years.
The fourth chapter continues the discussion of how the all-encompassing nature of the term tian-xia helped to establish an all-under-heaven order during the Qin and Han. Qin-Shi-Huang and the officials of his court often used the term in carrying out the policies of imperial mandates in an effort to include the only recently pacified six eastern states within the emperor’s domain. At this stage, the meaning of tian-xia was limited to “China,” but in the engraved commemorative stelae commissioned by the Qin emperors and officials, a broader meaning was implied, i.e. “all-under-heaven” including the si-yi (four barbarian peoples). Although they were aware of the discrepancy between “all-under-heaven” and the actual extent of their territory, employing phrases like “extending north of Da-Xia” to conceal the contradiction, the Qin emperors and officials were unlikely to have felt any shame in using the term. In the beginning, the Han’s strength was far weaker than the Qin’s, leaving them with no choice but to adjust their view of foreign relations. Thus, the meaning of tian-xia became more flexible, allowing for the inclusion of Nan-Yue into the tian-xia order of China and the four barbarian peoples on the one hand, as well as the co-existence of the Han and Xiong-Nu kingdoms in tian-xia on the other.
Tributary visits from the barbarians of the southwest were even seen as coming in response to the virtue of the emperor. But the connotations of the term tian-xia could not be molded and re-molded at will, and the ‘family of tian-xia’ during the Qin and Han seems to have only been used in reference to internal unity, never as justification for invading the lands of the four barbarian peoples. The early Han court accepted the independence of its feudal kingdoms. In their adoption of the term tian-xia, a polycentric tian-xia form of government was established and the feudal kingdoms were incorporated into the tian-xia order. However, a polycentric tian-xia order is, in the end, unstable; the term tian-xia erased the demarcation between the inner and the outer realms, as well as the scrupulousness of the un-egalitarian bureaucracy. The Han Dynasty tian-xia view, order, and form of government could yet be further improved.
The fifth chapter discusses how the Han court reconstructed the feudal system and consolidated the power of the central government, in order to further perfect the tian-xia order and tian-xia form of government. The key measure of their strategy was to reform the ‘kingdom system,’ establishing a ‘parallel commandery system’ wherein kingdoms were demoted to the status of commanderies and the administrative institutions of the Han were able to achieve a deconcentration of power through the division of labor. By adopting the feudal system, they were able to standardize a hierarchy of position between the emperor, the feudal kings, and so on, as well as make distinctions between the kingdoms’ administrative officials and domestic officials. From this time on, the polycentric tian-xia order vanished and a tian-xia form of government in which the Han emperor occupied the center was progressively established. This improvement of the tian-xia form of government influenced the changing of the contemporary tian-xia view. Through a close comparison of the texts, we discover that certain denotative conventions of the period (using the term tian-xia to refer to the territory of the Han, or the purposeful collocation of ‘commandery’ and ‘feudal kingdom’ in terms such as ‘jun-guo’ and ‘jun zhu-hou’) did not accurately reflect reality of the early Han’s circumstances. While this kind of sophisticated naming of territory was neither consistent nor common during the early Han, by the middle of the Western Han, the parallel commandery system was in place and the term jun-guo (commanderies and kingdoms) began to be popularized. The term jun-guo was beneficial to the development of the bureaucracy in several ways. It increased the efficacy of Han court decrees in terms of their transmission and execution throughout the empire. It also clearly demarcated the territory of the Han Dynasty. Finally, it helped make clear the distinction between the central and the local regions.
The conclusion in chapter six is that the inner versus the outer has always been a crucial element in Chinese politics. The term tian-xia became popularized because si-fang was not able to incorporate the outer. Because of tian-xia’s inability to delimit the inner from the outer, it must be divided into broad and narrow meanings, the narrow meaning referring to the ‘inner’ pacification of China and the broad meaning referring to the ‘outer’ subjugation of the four barbarian peoples. But the narrow and broad meanings of tian-xia go further in separating the inner from the outer. The broad meaning relies on the opposition between China and the four barbarian peoples. The narrow meaning relies on the polarity between wang-ji (the lands under direct control of the king) on the one hand and the commanderies and kingdoms on the other. The ways in which tian-xia views of the various historical periods differentiate the inner from the outer is a direction of research worth pursuing.

並列關鍵字

Tian-Xia View ； Tian-Xia Form of Government ； Tian-Xia Order ； Pu-Tian-Zhi-Xia ； Bei-Shan (Xiao-Ya) ； Feudalism ； Feudal Kingdom

參考文獻

屈萬里，《詩經詮釋》，臺北：聯經，1983。

屈萬里，《尚書集釋》，臺北：聯經，1983。

裘錫圭，〈豳公盨銘文考釋〉，收於氏著，《中國出土古文獻十講》，上海：復旦大學，2004，頁46-77。

季旭昇主編，陳霖慶、鄭玉姍、鄒濬智著，《《上海博物館藏戰國楚竹書讀本（一）》讀本》，臺北：萬卷樓，2004。

朱紅林，《張家山漢簡《二年律令》集釋》，北京：社科文獻，2005。