黃蓋治縣：從吳簡看《吳書》中的縣政

Huang Gai’s Governance of Shicheng County: A Study of County Administration in Wu Shu from the Zoumalou Sun Wu Documents

黃蓋出任石城縣守長期間，出「教」將縣廷文書行政事務交付給「兩掾」，要求他們監督約束諸曹，糾舉揭發過錯；兩掾簽署的文件，黃蓋一律批准許可；如果存在虛偽欺詐的行為，不施加鞭杖官刑，而以軍法從事。兩掾一開始敬慎職守，但後來逐漸包庇一些違法亂紀的行為。黃蓋通過審查文書，發現兩掾不奉行法令的過錯，於是召集縣廷掾吏，責問兩掾。兩掾理屈詞窮，被軍法處斬。全縣震慄而從服。從長沙走馬樓三國吳簡和《吳書》等文獻來看，黃蓋治縣的做法與當時日常縣政的情形有頗多相近之處。如黃蓋所出之「教」頗具威權，當時縣廷日常行政「言教」（口頭指示）與「文教」（文書教令）並行。吳簡中遺存的縣級教記很少，可能與當時縣廷之內的政務處理以「言教」為主有關。黃蓋所署的「分主諸曹」的「兩掾」，可能就是孫吳「君教」簡所記主掌省、錄文書的「主簿」和「主記史」，不出門下五吏的範圍。東漢、孫吳時期，多見縣令長與兩位側近的門下吏配合省、錄文書事或處理具體的重要政務，縣丞有閒散化的趨勢。黃蓋斬殺兩掾，也與孫吳重刑的政治風氣相偕適。雖然黃蓋治理石城縣的行政方式有其尋常之處，但是，黃蓋以「有軍旅之務」為由，「一以文書委付兩掾」，應是他針對山越不賓的緊急情況，下放文吏職權以換取地方豪民的支持，而自己專注於軍事征討的特殊表現。不僅如此，此事對於黃蓋行政風格的形成，「能吏」形象的刻畫，對於鞏固孫吳在豫章、丹楊郡的統治，也都具有重要意義。黃蓋治縣還在軍事征服之外，提供了另一種治理宗部與山越的有效模式，即在法制的範圍內通過治吏來鎮撫山越。這些是黃蓋治理石城被選擇寫入《三國志》的主要原因。

When Huang Gai first took over governance of Shicheng county, he issued an instruction (jiao 教) to delegate the county court’s administrative affairs to two attendants (yuan 掾). Accordingly, the attendants were required to supervise and regulate bureaus (cao 曹), as well as expose and rectify any wrongdoings. Huang would approve all of the administrative documents signed by the attendants. Any person involved in scams would not be punished by caning but subject to military laws. The attendants were duty-bound at first but gradually deviated towards criminal cover-ups. This eventually came to Huang Gai’s knowledge through his examining administrative documents. As a result, an interrogation was called and county court officials were summoned. The attendants were rendered speechless in regards to their own defense, and they were subsequently decapitated as per the military law. The punishment shocked the entire county and lawfulness prevailed afterwards. A comparative look at the unearthed Sun Wu documents at Zoumalou of Changsha, Wu Shu, and other texts revealed that there were many similarities between Huang Gai’s administrative methods and those practiced in other counties. For instance, Huang gave authoritative instructions and the county court performed daily administration using both oral and written instructions. The fact that not many written instructions were found in Wu slips may be attributed to oral instruction being the main method for handling county administration. The two attendants delegated by Huang Gai to supervise court bureaus may have been equivalent to the archivist and the recorder, as documented in Sun Wu’s jun-jiao slips, who were responsible for, respectively, reviewing and recording documents, and both belonged to the five officials of county magistrate’s disciple. During the Eastern Han and Sun Wu, a county magistrate often worked with two close attendants to record documents or handle key government affairs. However, the role of a deputy county chancellor was gradually being reduced to ineffectiveness. As such, Huang Gai’s decapitating his two attendants may be likened to Sun Wu’s prevalence of heavy punishment. The administrative methods in Huang Gai’s governance of Shicheng county may appear commonplace. The reality, though, belied such appearance. In other words, Huang garnered the support of local powerful families by employing their people as his two attendants and giving them full authority to handle county administrative documents. By so doing, he was able to focus on military conquest of Shanyue, the rebellious forces in the mountainous regions of Southern China. These matters had not only shaped Huang’s administrative style as well as his image as a competent official. They had also consolidated Sun Wu’s governance of Yuzhang and Danyang commanderies. Huang Gai’s county governance provided an alternative to military conquest in regards to effectively governing patriarchal clans and Shanyue. To this end, he rectified government officials by law to quell and pacify Shanyue. The above examples may have been grounds for Huang Gai’s governance of Shicheng county being recounted in the Sanguo Zhi (Records of the Three Kingdoms).