分權與集權──早期中國秦楚郡制的關係與比較

The Division and Concentration of Power in Local Government: A Study and Comparison of the Early Chinese Commandery Systems in Qin and Chu

本文在《製造「地方政府」──戰國至漢初郡制新考》一書的考證基礎上，進一步辨析若干秦楚郡制研究的未盡之處。首先指出秦郡曾經歷過劇烈變革：戰國秦郡從軍區發展到地方政府，整體權力趨於集中；統一天下後，秦郡建立起郡守、郡尉、郡監御史的「三府分立」體制，從原來的集權轉換成分權。除了「馬上得天下，不能馬上治天下」的內在需求，本文推測統一天下的秦國也可能汲取東方六國的政制經驗，因此統一秦郡的分權體制，可能還受到同樣分權制衡的戰國楚郡的影響。然而秦、楚郡制看似都是分權制衡的體制，背後的政體與社會結構卻大相徑庭。楚國的政體與社會結構深受西周貴族制影響，秦國則發展出君主專制的政體與社會。比較史學不能只流於表面形式異同的比較，必須深入探索形式背後的整體差異。

On the basis of research I conducted in my book The Creation of Local Government: A New Study of the Commandery System from the Warring States Period to the Start of the Han Dynasty, this essay further analyzes several aspects of the commandery and county system in Qin and Chu. This essay describes how the structure of Qin commanderies underwent major changes, and how in the Warring States period, commanderies developed from military districts into a form of local government, with power concentrated in the hands of the Commandery Governor. After the unification of China, power in the Qin commanderies was divided between the three offices of the Commandery Governor, Commandant, and Inspector, which represented a shift toward the division of power within local government administration. Beyond the differing needs of a state oriented toward conquest versus a state oriented toward rule in times of peace, this essay suggests that Qin may have drawn lessons from the institutional structures of the six eastern states, such that this shift toward the separation of powers was influenced by the division of power and checks and balances within the Chu commandery system. Although the Qin and Chu commandery systems thus both appear to be characterized by the division of power, the political and social structures of these two states were vastly different. While Chu was deeply influenced by the aristocratic political and social structure of the Western Zhou, the state of Qin developed an autocratic political system. Thus comparative historical study cannot limit itself to superficial similarities, but must instead examine in depth the structural differences that may lie behind a similarity of form.