论两汉的妖言
|
摘要
两汉时期,妖言作为一种较为独特的现象,发生了较大变化。西汉初年,妖言代表着激进并具有极强蛊惑性的政治言论。昭宣以来,伴随经术发展妖言预言性加强,儒生试图通过经术来解释频发的灾异现象并对当政者进行挑战,易君禅让思想由此壮大。东汉时期,妖言与谶纬紧密相连,大量妖贼、妖巫宣扬妖言并与民间信仰结合,妖言范围及使用人群不断泛化,这成为东汉政府崩溃的重要原因。
Heresy,a special phenomenon,has experienced remarkable changes during the Western Han and Eastern Han Dynasties.In the early years of the Western Han Dynasty,heresy represented deluding political speeches.During the governance of the Emperor Zhao and Emperor Xuan,with the development of JingShu,heresy became more predictive.Confucian scholars attempted to explain the frequent disasters and bizarre phenomena via Confucianism method and challenged the Emperors,thus forming the ideas of substituting the Emperors and forcing the Emperors to abdicate.In the Eastern Han Dynasty,heresy was closely connected to chenwei(divination combined with mystical Confucius belief).A large number of the advocates promoted heresy and incorporated it with folk beliefs.As a consequence,Heresy was widely spread to the public,which resulted in collapse of the Eastern Han government.
Heresy,a special phenomenon,has experienced remarkable changes during the Western Han and Eastern Han Dynasties.In the early years of the Western Han Dynasty,heresy represented deluding political speeches.During the governance of the Emperor Zhao and Emperor Xuan,with the development of JingShu,heresy became more predictive.Confucian scholars attempted to explain the frequent disasters and bizarre phenomena via Confucianism method and challenged the Emperors,thus forming the ideas of substituting the Emperors and forcing the Emperors to abdicate.In the Eastern Han Dynasty,heresy was closely connected to chenwei(divination combined with mystical Confucius belief).A large number of the advocates promoted heresy and incorporated it with folk beliefs.As a consequence,Heresy was widely spread to the public,which resulted in collapse of the Eastern Han government.
引文
[1] 吕宗力.汉代的谣言[M].杭州:浙江大学出版社,2011.
[2] 大庭修.秦汉法制史研究[M].林剑鸣,等译.上海:上海人民出版社,1991:93-94.
[3] 潘良炽.秦汉诽谤、妖言罪同异辨析[J].中华文化论坛,2004,(4):152-155.
[4] 宋洁.汉文帝“除诽谤妖言诏”发覆[J].史学月刊,2014,(3):133-136.
[5] 吕宗力.汉代妖言探讨[J].中国史研究,2006,(4):39-58.
[6] 沈家本.历代刑法考[M].北京:中华书局,1985.
[7] 王先谦.荀子集解[M].北京:中华书局,1988.
[8] 许慎.说文解字[M].段玉裁注.上海:上海古籍出版社,1981:35.
[9] 郭庆藩.庄子集释[M].北京:中华书局,1961:246.
[10] 杨伯峻.春秋左传注[M].北京:中华书局,1981.
[11] 陈伟.秦简牍合集·一[M].武汉:武汉大学出版社,2014:445.
[12] 陈立.白虎通疏证[M].北京:中华书局,1994:270.
[13] 陈松长.岳麓秦简中的令文格式初论[J].上海师范大学学报,2017,(6):44-49.
[14] 司马迁.史记[M].北京:中华书局,2014.
[15] 钱穆.秦汉史[M].北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,2005:26.
[16] 董涛.政治文化视角下的秦始皇求仙[J].南都学坛,2016,(6):31-36.
[17] 班固.汉书[M].北京:中华书局,1984.
[18] 张峰屹.政治、经学的衰变与西汉后期士人心态的走向[J].南开学报:社会科学版,2001,(2):45-53.
[19] 王树民.廿二史札记校正[M].北京:中华书局,1984:38-40.
[20] 张小峰.“公孙病已立”谶言的出现与昭帝统治局势[J].中国史研究,2001,(1):11-17.
[21] 宋超.“霍氏之祸,萌于骖乘”发微——宣帝与霍氏家族关系探讨[J].史学月刊,2000,(5):26-36.
[22] 蒙文通.古学甄微[M].成都:巴蜀书社,1987:188-189.
[23] 范晔.后汉书[M].北京:中华书局,1965.
[24] 阎步克.士大夫政治演生史稿[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2015:389.
[25] 贾文龙.宋代“妖言”罪源流考[J].河北学刊,2002,(2):125-129.
[26] 谭晓静.明代的“妖书”“妖言”研究[D].南昌:江西师范大学硕士论文,2008:7-8.
[2] 大庭修.秦汉法制史研究[M].林剑鸣,等译.上海:上海人民出版社,1991:93-94.
[3] 潘良炽.秦汉诽谤、妖言罪同异辨析[J].中华文化论坛,2004,(4):152-155.
[4] 宋洁.汉文帝“除诽谤妖言诏”发覆[J].史学月刊,2014,(3):133-136.
[5] 吕宗力.汉代妖言探讨[J].中国史研究,2006,(4):39-58.
[6] 沈家本.历代刑法考[M].北京:中华书局,1985.
[7] 王先谦.荀子集解[M].北京:中华书局,1988.
[8] 许慎.说文解字[M].段玉裁注.上海:上海古籍出版社,1981:35.
[9] 郭庆藩.庄子集释[M].北京:中华书局,1961:246.
[10] 杨伯峻.春秋左传注[M].北京:中华书局,1981.
[11] 陈伟.秦简牍合集·一[M].武汉:武汉大学出版社,2014:445.
[12] 陈立.白虎通疏证[M].北京:中华书局,1994:270.
[13] 陈松长.岳麓秦简中的令文格式初论[J].上海师范大学学报,2017,(6):44-49.
[14] 司马迁.史记[M].北京:中华书局,2014.
[15] 钱穆.秦汉史[M].北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,2005:26.
[16] 董涛.政治文化视角下的秦始皇求仙[J].南都学坛,2016,(6):31-36.
[17] 班固.汉书[M].北京:中华书局,1984.
[18] 张峰屹.政治、经学的衰变与西汉后期士人心态的走向[J].南开学报:社会科学版,2001,(2):45-53.
[19] 王树民.廿二史札记校正[M].北京:中华书局,1984:38-40.
[20] 张小峰.“公孙病已立”谶言的出现与昭帝统治局势[J].中国史研究,2001,(1):11-17.
[21] 宋超.“霍氏之祸,萌于骖乘”发微——宣帝与霍氏家族关系探讨[J].史学月刊,2000,(5):26-36.
[22] 蒙文通.古学甄微[M].成都:巴蜀书社,1987:188-189.
[23] 范晔.后汉书[M].北京:中华书局,1965.
[24] 阎步克.士大夫政治演生史稿[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2015:389.
[25] 贾文龙.宋代“妖言”罪源流考[J].河北学刊,2002,(2):125-129.
[26] 谭晓静.明代的“妖书”“妖言”研究[D].南昌:江西师范大学硕士论文,2008:7-8.