權力與史學：明代官方修史制度的政治作用

本文旨在探討明代官方修史制度在發展、變遷與實踐的過程中，所發揮的政治作用，及其與明代政局、官僚體系，乃至明人史學理念的互動。　　明代的官方修史活動，與其修纂主力人員所屬的翰林院，以及自該院發展出的內閣，有著密切的聯繫，並在明代前期歷任君主，特別是成祖、仁宗、宣宗三代帝王的政治規劃下，隨著閣院關係的產生、翻轉和底定，逐漸形成一套為後續歷朝遵行、大致穩定的制度。當中的種種「慣例」或「成規」，無論是纂修作業的固定程序，還是已具固定體裁或學術傳統的文本，都可能在官方修史的實踐過程中，衍生出特殊的政治意義，進而在明代不同時期、政治背景，以及皇帝本身對修纂事務的不同態度下，被有意識地加以運用，以達到特定的政治目的或影響。另外，明代閣臣由於上述的制度發展，自正統年間起便以總裁身分主持各項官修工作，此一原則隨著成化以降閣臣政爭的頻繁化，為其利用總裁修史之權任情褒貶、黨同伐異或發洩私怨，或者委婉批判先帝時政、嘗試約束繼任君主的意圖，創造了機會。　　值得注意的是，明代官修與私纂歷史著述之間的關係，並不盡然是近似於光譜或天平的兩端，彼此相互對立，或是此盛彼衰的型態。這兩類著作的作者群，甚至可能存在相當程度的重疊，或是享有共同的人際與學術網絡、意識形態乃至史學理念。不過，官方著述通常具有的政治目的性，確實可能與時人的史學理念產生落差，從而形成爭議、矛盾及自行纂述的嘗試。而這些嘗試，亦可能隨著政治與學術環境的變化，對後續的官方修纂產生影響。

關鍵字

官方修史；政治作用；內閣；翰林院；實錄；國史

並列摘要

This study is about the political roles of Ming official historiography. As a result of the political arrangement by former emperors, the making of official historiography had gradually become a stable system since Zhengtong period. Its close relation and interaction with the Grand Secretariat and Hanlin Academy had caused continuous influence to the compilation of those official works, which were usually susceptible to the political situation. Emperors like Jingtai and Jiajing Emperor, who had no right to the throne at the beginning, used different works of official compilation to establish their own political authority or legitimacy. And there were also some emperors, Tianshun Emperor for example, tried to use the predictable rules of official historiography to control the writing of their own Veritable Record. However, official historiography in Ming China was not an exclusive political resource that only for emperors. Grand Secretaries, who had become the main directors of most works of official historiography since Zhengtong period, also had various ways to use those compilation tasks for their own purposes. Some Grand Secretaries tried to slander their political opponents in the Veritable Record of the former emperor, while some tried to turn the record into a political textbook, showing “the proper ways of ruling” to the new ruler. 　One the other hand, to some officials that were in the work teams of the official compilation, history should reflect more moral lessons, methods of governing and “proper orthodoxy”, or simply restore the truth, rather than cater to political needs of the regime. By making sharp criticism, specific suggestions, or even compiling their own works, these officials tried to persuade the court to correct the error in the official historiography. And their efforts had not only promoted the development of unofficial historiography, but also influenced some official tasks of historiography, such as the compilation of the national history, in later period.