親親與幽禁──探析明代高牆規劃與罪宗淹禁現象

Benign Affection and Imposed Seclusion: On the Construction of the Royal Prison and Long-term Imprisonment of Imperial Clansmen in the Ming Dynasty

明太祖在制訂明律之時，將傳統律法的「議親」思想，強化為「親親」的思想，並具體規範於《皇明祖訓》，致使宗藩勢力極大，同時又因繁衍漸多，造成了明代社會的整體負擔。明代宗藩犯罪的情形，所採行的司法程序，與一般審判不同，而《大明律》與《問刑條例》等，也並非審判罪宗的司法依據，即使規範宗藩行為的《皇明祖訓》，亦在模糊之間，而懲戒的方式，也在五刑之外，有其特殊與不確定的性質。 明代宗室犯罪者，概稱為「罪宗」，對罪宗的犯罪處罰，除了極少數罪大惡極、謀逆者，朝廷勒令自盡與處死之外，其餘罪宗多處以革爵、革祿米、禁錮高牆或閒宅。所以，實際上罪宗最常見的嚴重處罰，即是禁錮鳳陽「高牆」。而鳳陽高牆是用以禁錮罪宗的專門監獄，設置於明代中期左右，後因罪宗與眷屬數量增多，進而增加「閒宅」作為擴充的監禁空間。學界研究大多僅針對鳳陽高牆進行研究，對於閒宅的設置則較為忽略；同時，閒宅的出現不僅反映出罪宗長期淹禁的普遍現象，也反映出「藩禁」日趨嚴厲，與禁止宗室擅離封地的限制強化。 因此，本文以明代鳳陽高牆的管理為核心，探討高牆制度的設計與規劃，以及罪宗人數日趨增加，造成了高牆空間不足、罪宗長期淹禁等兩大問題。同時，討論閒宅設置所衍生的嘉靖32年（1553）條例，與禁止宗室擅離封地的強化，兩者之間的關聯性。此外，更進一步討論高牆管理之外，朝廷如何處理罪宗的清理與釋放、淹禁問題的解決等，相互之間的關係與影響。進而理解明代皇帝對宗藩的複雜關係，一方面要顧及「親親」之意，另一方面卻對禁錮高牆的罪宗，棄之不理，衍生出淹禁現象，所產生的矛盾、緊張與對立的狀態。

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.