明代建文年号的“革除”与未革之说再辨析
|
摘要
自明万历时代以来,建文年号的"革除"与未革之说长期争诉不休。这一问题既关乎史实真伪,又涉及史书纪年笔法,有必要探本溯源,从观念史的层面进行辨析。革除建文年号,即明成祖改建文纪年为洪武事,始于燕王靖难后期,永乐间朝廷进一步将其推广到全国范围。成祖无明令曰"革除建文年号",永乐初,官方上层最早使用"革除"这种特殊提法。《明太宗实录》记靖难史事用建文纪年,实际上未行"革除",成为后世未革之说的重要肇端。在明中后期朝野呼吁官修建文朝史的社会潮流下,未革之说于万历朝登场,或曰成祖未革年号,或称成祖本意不欲"革除"。顾炎武从史书纪年笔法的角度强调《明太宗实录》中建文纪年的合理性,所著《革除辨》承万历时人之余绪,系统论述成祖未革年号,其说甚至影响到官修《明史》。相当多持建文年号未革说者,有其特定目的或立场,所争不在于建文年号"革除"与否这一史实,而在于建文朝之历史地位。
Emperor Chengzu in the Ming Dynasty ordered that all documents recording the era of Jianwen be changed to Hongwu in order to establish himself as a legitimate successor of Emperor Taizu. It was at the end of Jingnan Period that the Prince of Yan changed Jianwen into Hongwu. At the beginning of the Yongle reign, the adaption of Jianwen Era was first called "removal" by some senior officials. In Hongxi and Xuande reigns of the Ming Dynasty, the official historiographers tried to make amendment while compiling Veritable Records of Taizong, and they used Jianwen Era, which was an important cause that led to the fact that some people believed that Jianwen Era was not removed. When the court and the commonalty appealed to the official to compile the history of Jianwen in the middle and late Ming Dynasty, the viewpoint that Jianwen Era was not removed emerging in Wanli reign of the Ming Dynasty. Some scholar-bureaucrats claimed that Emperor Chengzu did not remove Jianwen Era or had no intention to do so. Gu Yanwu emphasized the reasonability of Jianwen Era in Veritable Records of Taizong, when he wrote Differentiating of Removal which carried on the tradition of scholar-bureaucrats in Wanli reign of the Ming Dynasty that Emperor Chengzu had no intention of removing Jianwen Era. Gu Yanwu's idea had an influence on the compiling of History of the Ming Dynasty in the Qing Dynasty. Most people holding the viewpoint that the Jianwen Era was not removed often had special purposes or stands. What they cared about is the historical status of Jianwen reign rather than the historical fact of whether the removal really happened or not.
Emperor Chengzu in the Ming Dynasty ordered that all documents recording the era of Jianwen be changed to Hongwu in order to establish himself as a legitimate successor of Emperor Taizu. It was at the end of Jingnan Period that the Prince of Yan changed Jianwen into Hongwu. At the beginning of the Yongle reign, the adaption of Jianwen Era was first called "removal" by some senior officials. In Hongxi and Xuande reigns of the Ming Dynasty, the official historiographers tried to make amendment while compiling Veritable Records of Taizong, and they used Jianwen Era, which was an important cause that led to the fact that some people believed that Jianwen Era was not removed. When the court and the commonalty appealed to the official to compile the history of Jianwen in the middle and late Ming Dynasty, the viewpoint that Jianwen Era was not removed emerging in Wanli reign of the Ming Dynasty. Some scholar-bureaucrats claimed that Emperor Chengzu did not remove Jianwen Era or had no intention to do so. Gu Yanwu emphasized the reasonability of Jianwen Era in Veritable Records of Taizong, when he wrote Differentiating of Removal which carried on the tradition of scholar-bureaucrats in Wanli reign of the Ming Dynasty that Emperor Chengzu had no intention of removing Jianwen Era. Gu Yanwu's idea had an influence on the compiling of History of the Ming Dynasty in the Qing Dynasty. Most people holding the viewpoint that the Jianwen Era was not removed often had special purposes or stands. What they cared about is the historical status of Jianwen reign rather than the historical fact of whether the removal really happened or not.
引文
(1)明太宗实录[M].卷九下.洪武三十五年六月庚午.台北:中研院史语所,1962:136.
(2)明太宗实录[M].卷十上.洪武三十五年七月壬午.台北:中研院史语所,1962:145.
(3)王崇武.《奉天靖难记》注[M].上海:商务印书馆,1948:29-30.
(4)李晋华遗著.关于明实录问题材料汇辑[A][原载:大陆杂志,1971(3)].大陆杂志史学丛书.第4辑第5册.明清史研究论集[C],台北:大陆杂志社,1975:54-56.
(5)吴缉华.明代建文帝在传统皇位上的问题[A].[原载:大陆杂志,1959(1)].大陆杂志史学丛书.第1辑第6册.元明史研究论集[C],台北:大陆杂志社,1960:106-109;吴缉华.明代纪年问题[A].(原载:大陆杂志特刊.第2辑.1962),大陆杂志史学丛书.第2辑第4册.明清史研究论集[C],台北:大陆杂志社,1967:1-3.
(6)黄云眉.明史考证[M].北京:中华书局,1979:66.
(7)参见刘倩.“靖难”及其文学重写[D].中国社会科学院研究生院博士论文,2003:16-22;潘忠泉、李怡.建文朝年号革除考述[J].北方论丛,2006(3):82-85;吴德义.试论建文史学[J].西北师大学报(社会科学版),2010(2):37;谢贵安.试论《明实录》对建文帝的态度及其变化[J].北京联合大学学报(人文社会科学版),2010(3):31.
(8)商传.永乐皇帝[M].北京:北京出版社,1989:140.
(9)[明]陈建.皇明通纪法传全录[M].卷十二.续修四库全书[Z].第357册.上海:上海古籍出版社,2002:194.
(10)[清]潘柽章.国史考异[M].卷四.北京:中华书局,1985:111.
(11)吴缉华.明代建文帝在传统皇位上的问题[A].[原载:大陆杂志,1959(1)].大陆杂志史学丛书.第1辑第6册.元明史研究论集[C],台北:大陆杂志社,1960:106.
(12)[明]许相卿.革朝志[M].卷一《建文君纪》.四库全书存目丛书[Z].史部第47册.济南:齐鲁书社,1997:146.
(13)[明]高岱.鸿猷录[M].卷七《转战山东》.北京:中华书局,1985:85.
(14)[明]沈德符.万历野获编·补遗[M].卷一《年号别称》.北京:中华书局,1959:799.
(15)[明]姜清.姜氏秘史[M].续修四库全书[Z].432册.上海:上海古籍出版社,2002:600.
(16)[清]孔尚任.孔尚任诗文集[M].卷八《明燕王靖难札付》.汪蔚林编.北京:中华书局,1962:589-590.
(17)刘倩.“靖难”及其文学重写[D].中国社会科学院研究生院博士论文,2003:19.
(18)[明]宋端仪.立斋闲录[M].卷二.[明]邓士龙辑.国朝典故[M].卷四十.许大龄、王天有等标点.北京:北京大学出版社,1993:944.
(19)陈建记述当非实际情形,或其所据为《姜氏秘史》?
(20)吴德义.《明史》杨士奇“举三事”说质疑[J].西南大学学报(社会科学版),2010(5):76;吴德义.政局变迁与历史叙事:明代建文史编撰研究[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,2013:77.
(21)[明]宋端仪.立斋闲录[M].卷二.[明]邓士龙辑.国朝典故[M].卷四十.许大龄、王天有等标点.北京:北京大学出版社,1993:964.
(22)李朝太宗实录[M].卷四.太宗二年十月癸亥.东京:学习院东洋文化研究所,1954:23.
(23)李朝太宗实录[M].卷十一.太宗六年四月己卯.东京:学习院东洋文化研究所,1954:659-660.
(24)李朝太宗实录[M].卷十三.太宗七年正月辛巳.东京:学习院东洋文化研究所,1954:11-12.
(25)李朝太宗实录[M].卷十四.太宗七年九月丁巳.东京:学习院东洋文化研究所,1954:125-126.
(26)[明]倪岳.青溪漫稿[M].卷二一《大明故太子少保礼部尚书兼翰林学士赠资政大夫太子少傅谥文思彭公神道碑》.文渊阁四库全书[Z].第1251册.台北:台湾商务印书馆,1986:293.
(27)[明]李东阳.怀麓堂集[M].卷八三《明故资善大夫太子少保礼部尚书兼翰林院学士赠资政大夫太子少保谥文思彭公墓志铭》.文渊阁四库全书[Z].第1250册.台北:台湾商务印书馆,1986:870-871.
(28)王崇武.《奉天靖难记》注[M].上海:商务印书馆,1948:29-30;王氏认为《奉天靖难记》成书于永乐二年四月至十六年五月之间,见该书“序”,第1页。
(29)吴缉华.明代纪年问题[A].(原载:大陆杂志特刊.第2辑.1962).大陆杂志史学丛书.第2辑第4册.明清史研究论集[C].台北:大陆杂志社,1967:3.
(30)谢贵安.明实录研究[M].武汉:湖北人民出版社,2003:207-219.
(31)明太宗实录[M].卷首.“凡例”.中研院史语所,1962:1.
(32)谢贵安.明实录研究[M].武汉:湖北人民出版社,2003:208-209.
(33)王崇武.明靖难史事考证稿[M].上海:商务印书馆,1948:22.
(34)[明]不著撰人.奉天靖难记[M].卷一.[明]邓士龙辑.国朝典故[M].卷四十.许大龄、王天有等标点.北京:北京大学出版社,1993:202.
(35)明太宗实录[M].卷一.洪武三十一年闰五月乙酉.台北:中研院史语所,1962:5.
(36)明太宗实录[M].卷九下.四年六月己巳.台北:中研院史语所,1962:135-136.
(37)明太宗实录[M].卷九下.洪武三十五年六月庚午.台北:中研院史语所,1962:136.
(38)谢贵安.明实录研究[M].武汉:湖北人民出版社,2003:399-400.
(39)“革除”可以特指事件,如革除之变、革除之祸、革除之难、靖难革除。“革除”可以表示时间段,如革除时、革除初、革除年间、革除之际;“革除”可以作为为纪年方式,如革除元年、革除建文元年、革除庚辰;“革除”可以指代建文朝,如革除朝、革除君、革除诸臣、革除忠臣……民间私修建文朝史著目录中,亦多有以“革除”为名者:《革除录》《革除遗事》《革朝志》《革除逸史》《革除逸事》《革除编年》《革除漫录》《革除纪遗》《革除遗忠录》《革除群忠事略》《革除纪》《革朝遗忠录》……
(40)[明]郑善夫.少谷集[M].卷六《读备遗录》.文渊阁四库全书[Z].第1269册.台北:台湾商务印书馆,1986:91.
(41)[清]刘承编.明史例案[M].卷三《王横云史例议下》.吴兴:刘氏嘉业堂,1915:17a.
(42)[明]王世贞.?州四部稿[M].卷一百六《文部·应诏求言疏》.《中国基本古籍库》明万历刻本:1156.
(43)[明]王世贞.?州四部稿[M].卷一七七《说部·燕语下·革除年号》.《中国基本古籍库》明万历刻本:1919-1920.
(44)[明]何乔新.椒邱文集[M].卷三十《嘉议大夫吏部右侍郎兼詹事府丞谥文懿杨公墓志铭》.文渊阁四库全书[Z].第1249册.台北:台湾商务印书馆,1986:462-464.
(45)[明]王世懋.窥天外乘[M].北京:中华书局,1985:6-7.
(46)[明]王祖嫡.师竹堂集[M].卷二九《论革除附录疏》.四库未收书辑刊[Z].第5辑第23册.北京:北京出版社,1997:319-322;明神宗实录[M].卷一九五.万历十六年二月丁丑.台北:中研院史语所,1962:3674.
(47)[明]沈鲤.亦玉堂稿[M].卷一《请复建文年号立景泰实录疏》.文渊阁四库全书[Z].1288册.台北:台湾商务印书馆,1986:211.
(48)明神宗实录[M].卷一九六.万历十六年三月壬辰.台北:中研院史语所,1962:3693-3694.
(49)[明]余继登.淡然轩集[M].卷一《修史疏二》.文渊阁四库全书[Z].第1291册.台北:台湾商务印书馆,1986:767.
(50)[明]沈德符.万历野获编·补遗[M].卷一《年号别称》.北京:中华书局,1959:799.
(51)[清]顾炎武.日知录校注[M].卷二十《年号当从实书》.陈垣校注.合肥:安徽大学出版社,2007:1115-1118.
(52)[清]顾炎武.日知录校注[M].卷二十《史书一年二号》.陈垣校注.合肥:安徽大学出版社,2007:1118-1121.
(53)[清]顾炎武.顾亭林诗文集[M].卷一《革除辨》.华忱之校注.北京:中华书局,1959:9-10.
(54)[清]凌扬藻.蠡勺编[M].卷十六《革除》.北京:中华书局,1985:268-270.
(55)[清]王士祯.古夫于亭杂录[M].卷五《洪武纪年》.赵伯陶校注.北京:中华书局,1988:110.
(56)[清]刘承编.明史例案[M].卷三《王横云史例议下》.吴兴:刘氏嘉业堂,1915:17a.
(57)[清]杨椿.孟邻堂文钞[M].卷三《成祖论二》.续修四库全书[Z].第1423册.上海:上海古籍出版社,2002:39-40.
(58)[清]张廷玉等.明史[M].卷五《成祖本纪一》.卷七《成祖本纪三》.北京:中华书局,1974:75,105.
(59)[清]王士祯.古夫于亭杂录[M].卷一《汪于鼎》.北京:中华书局,1988:8.
(60)[清]朱彝尊.曝书亭集[M].卷四五《姜清秘史跋》.上海:国学排印社,1937:548.
(61)[清]王士祯.古夫于亭杂录[M].卷五《洪武纪年》.北京:中华书局,1988:110.
(62)[清]王士祯.古夫于亭杂录[M].卷一《汪于鼎》.北京:中华书局,1988:8.
(2)明太宗实录[M].卷十上.洪武三十五年七月壬午.台北:中研院史语所,1962:145.
(3)王崇武.《奉天靖难记》注[M].上海:商务印书馆,1948:29-30.
(4)李晋华遗著.关于明实录问题材料汇辑[A][原载:大陆杂志,1971(3)].大陆杂志史学丛书.第4辑第5册.明清史研究论集[C],台北:大陆杂志社,1975:54-56.
(5)吴缉华.明代建文帝在传统皇位上的问题[A].[原载:大陆杂志,1959(1)].大陆杂志史学丛书.第1辑第6册.元明史研究论集[C],台北:大陆杂志社,1960:106-109;吴缉华.明代纪年问题[A].(原载:大陆杂志特刊.第2辑.1962),大陆杂志史学丛书.第2辑第4册.明清史研究论集[C],台北:大陆杂志社,1967:1-3.
(6)黄云眉.明史考证[M].北京:中华书局,1979:66.
(7)参见刘倩.“靖难”及其文学重写[D].中国社会科学院研究生院博士论文,2003:16-22;潘忠泉、李怡.建文朝年号革除考述[J].北方论丛,2006(3):82-85;吴德义.试论建文史学[J].西北师大学报(社会科学版),2010(2):37;谢贵安.试论《明实录》对建文帝的态度及其变化[J].北京联合大学学报(人文社会科学版),2010(3):31.
(8)商传.永乐皇帝[M].北京:北京出版社,1989:140.
(9)[明]陈建.皇明通纪法传全录[M].卷十二.续修四库全书[Z].第357册.上海:上海古籍出版社,2002:194.
(10)[清]潘柽章.国史考异[M].卷四.北京:中华书局,1985:111.
(11)吴缉华.明代建文帝在传统皇位上的问题[A].[原载:大陆杂志,1959(1)].大陆杂志史学丛书.第1辑第6册.元明史研究论集[C],台北:大陆杂志社,1960:106.
(12)[明]许相卿.革朝志[M].卷一《建文君纪》.四库全书存目丛书[Z].史部第47册.济南:齐鲁书社,1997:146.
(13)[明]高岱.鸿猷录[M].卷七《转战山东》.北京:中华书局,1985:85.
(14)[明]沈德符.万历野获编·补遗[M].卷一《年号别称》.北京:中华书局,1959:799.
(15)[明]姜清.姜氏秘史[M].续修四库全书[Z].432册.上海:上海古籍出版社,2002:600.
(16)[清]孔尚任.孔尚任诗文集[M].卷八《明燕王靖难札付》.汪蔚林编.北京:中华书局,1962:589-590.
(17)刘倩.“靖难”及其文学重写[D].中国社会科学院研究生院博士论文,2003:19.
(18)[明]宋端仪.立斋闲录[M].卷二.[明]邓士龙辑.国朝典故[M].卷四十.许大龄、王天有等标点.北京:北京大学出版社,1993:944.
(19)陈建记述当非实际情形,或其所据为《姜氏秘史》?
(20)吴德义.《明史》杨士奇“举三事”说质疑[J].西南大学学报(社会科学版),2010(5):76;吴德义.政局变迁与历史叙事:明代建文史编撰研究[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,2013:77.
(21)[明]宋端仪.立斋闲录[M].卷二.[明]邓士龙辑.国朝典故[M].卷四十.许大龄、王天有等标点.北京:北京大学出版社,1993:964.
(22)李朝太宗实录[M].卷四.太宗二年十月癸亥.东京:学习院东洋文化研究所,1954:23.
(23)李朝太宗实录[M].卷十一.太宗六年四月己卯.东京:学习院东洋文化研究所,1954:659-660.
(24)李朝太宗实录[M].卷十三.太宗七年正月辛巳.东京:学习院东洋文化研究所,1954:11-12.
(25)李朝太宗实录[M].卷十四.太宗七年九月丁巳.东京:学习院东洋文化研究所,1954:125-126.
(26)[明]倪岳.青溪漫稿[M].卷二一《大明故太子少保礼部尚书兼翰林学士赠资政大夫太子少傅谥文思彭公神道碑》.文渊阁四库全书[Z].第1251册.台北:台湾商务印书馆,1986:293.
(27)[明]李东阳.怀麓堂集[M].卷八三《明故资善大夫太子少保礼部尚书兼翰林院学士赠资政大夫太子少保谥文思彭公墓志铭》.文渊阁四库全书[Z].第1250册.台北:台湾商务印书馆,1986:870-871.
(28)王崇武.《奉天靖难记》注[M].上海:商务印书馆,1948:29-30;王氏认为《奉天靖难记》成书于永乐二年四月至十六年五月之间,见该书“序”,第1页。
(29)吴缉华.明代纪年问题[A].(原载:大陆杂志特刊.第2辑.1962).大陆杂志史学丛书.第2辑第4册.明清史研究论集[C].台北:大陆杂志社,1967:3.
(30)谢贵安.明实录研究[M].武汉:湖北人民出版社,2003:207-219.
(31)明太宗实录[M].卷首.“凡例”.中研院史语所,1962:1.
(32)谢贵安.明实录研究[M].武汉:湖北人民出版社,2003:208-209.
(33)王崇武.明靖难史事考证稿[M].上海:商务印书馆,1948:22.
(34)[明]不著撰人.奉天靖难记[M].卷一.[明]邓士龙辑.国朝典故[M].卷四十.许大龄、王天有等标点.北京:北京大学出版社,1993:202.
(35)明太宗实录[M].卷一.洪武三十一年闰五月乙酉.台北:中研院史语所,1962:5.
(36)明太宗实录[M].卷九下.四年六月己巳.台北:中研院史语所,1962:135-136.
(37)明太宗实录[M].卷九下.洪武三十五年六月庚午.台北:中研院史语所,1962:136.
(38)谢贵安.明实录研究[M].武汉:湖北人民出版社,2003:399-400.
(39)“革除”可以特指事件,如革除之变、革除之祸、革除之难、靖难革除。“革除”可以表示时间段,如革除时、革除初、革除年间、革除之际;“革除”可以作为为纪年方式,如革除元年、革除建文元年、革除庚辰;“革除”可以指代建文朝,如革除朝、革除君、革除诸臣、革除忠臣……民间私修建文朝史著目录中,亦多有以“革除”为名者:《革除录》《革除遗事》《革朝志》《革除逸史》《革除逸事》《革除编年》《革除漫录》《革除纪遗》《革除遗忠录》《革除群忠事略》《革除纪》《革朝遗忠录》……
(40)[明]郑善夫.少谷集[M].卷六《读备遗录》.文渊阁四库全书[Z].第1269册.台北:台湾商务印书馆,1986:91.
(41)[清]刘承编.明史例案[M].卷三《王横云史例议下》.吴兴:刘氏嘉业堂,1915:17a.
(42)[明]王世贞.?州四部稿[M].卷一百六《文部·应诏求言疏》.《中国基本古籍库》明万历刻本:1156.
(43)[明]王世贞.?州四部稿[M].卷一七七《说部·燕语下·革除年号》.《中国基本古籍库》明万历刻本:1919-1920.
(44)[明]何乔新.椒邱文集[M].卷三十《嘉议大夫吏部右侍郎兼詹事府丞谥文懿杨公墓志铭》.文渊阁四库全书[Z].第1249册.台北:台湾商务印书馆,1986:462-464.
(45)[明]王世懋.窥天外乘[M].北京:中华书局,1985:6-7.
(46)[明]王祖嫡.师竹堂集[M].卷二九《论革除附录疏》.四库未收书辑刊[Z].第5辑第23册.北京:北京出版社,1997:319-322;明神宗实录[M].卷一九五.万历十六年二月丁丑.台北:中研院史语所,1962:3674.
(47)[明]沈鲤.亦玉堂稿[M].卷一《请复建文年号立景泰实录疏》.文渊阁四库全书[Z].1288册.台北:台湾商务印书馆,1986:211.
(48)明神宗实录[M].卷一九六.万历十六年三月壬辰.台北:中研院史语所,1962:3693-3694.
(49)[明]余继登.淡然轩集[M].卷一《修史疏二》.文渊阁四库全书[Z].第1291册.台北:台湾商务印书馆,1986:767.
(50)[明]沈德符.万历野获编·补遗[M].卷一《年号别称》.北京:中华书局,1959:799.
(51)[清]顾炎武.日知录校注[M].卷二十《年号当从实书》.陈垣校注.合肥:安徽大学出版社,2007:1115-1118.
(52)[清]顾炎武.日知录校注[M].卷二十《史书一年二号》.陈垣校注.合肥:安徽大学出版社,2007:1118-1121.
(53)[清]顾炎武.顾亭林诗文集[M].卷一《革除辨》.华忱之校注.北京:中华书局,1959:9-10.
(54)[清]凌扬藻.蠡勺编[M].卷十六《革除》.北京:中华书局,1985:268-270.
(55)[清]王士祯.古夫于亭杂录[M].卷五《洪武纪年》.赵伯陶校注.北京:中华书局,1988:110.
(56)[清]刘承编.明史例案[M].卷三《王横云史例议下》.吴兴:刘氏嘉业堂,1915:17a.
(57)[清]杨椿.孟邻堂文钞[M].卷三《成祖论二》.续修四库全书[Z].第1423册.上海:上海古籍出版社,2002:39-40.
(58)[清]张廷玉等.明史[M].卷五《成祖本纪一》.卷七《成祖本纪三》.北京:中华书局,1974:75,105.
(59)[清]王士祯.古夫于亭杂录[M].卷一《汪于鼎》.北京:中华书局,1988:8.
(60)[清]朱彝尊.曝书亭集[M].卷四五《姜清秘史跋》.上海:国学排印社,1937:548.
(61)[清]王士祯.古夫于亭杂录[M].卷五《洪武纪年》.北京:中华书局,1988:110.
(62)[清]王士祯.古夫于亭杂录[M].卷一《汪于鼎》.北京:中华书局,1988:8.