「當然屬於專制，但卻是各類型專制中最好的一種」（孟德斯鳩）──比較歷史視野下帝制中國的威權型合法性

“Despotism, Certainly, But the Best of All”(Montesquieu): China’s Autocratic Legality in a Comparative Historical Perspective

本文係筆者在北美中國史學者的學術會議上發言的續作。受到當下中國與西方國家之間關係惡化的影響，西方學者對中國歷史的看法發生了巨大轉變，而對此種現象的憂慮促成了本文的寫作。此種轉變最顯著地表現為一種觀點，其認為中國僅有規訓和秩序，而缺乏作為法治之基礎的真正法律。似乎僅有民主語境下的法治，方能孕育出唯一真正的法律體系。不同於此種簡單化的法律觀念，本文表明，遍覽世界歷史，法律都曾是統治的工具，其與民主理念的結合相當晚近，而且不乏含混與欺瞞。因此，評判一個法律體系，不應依據晚近關於法律應該是什麽的民主式偏見，而應基於該法律體系自身的術語和歷史發展。這也是孟德斯鳩（Montesquieu，1689-1755）關於帝制中國之悖論性看法的啟發所在。按照孟德斯鳩的《論法的精神》（De l’esprit des lois，1748）一書，中國是一個「專制政體」，但在其更加私密的筆記中，當孟德斯鳩注意到中國平衡的制度與精密的法律體系時，便弱化了這一判斷：「當然屬於專制，但卻是各類型專制中最好的一種。」換言之，不應根據統治的形態來預判法律體系的品質。秉持此種理念，本文沿著三個主要階段回溯了中國法律體系的演化。秦漢時期的古代「武士帝國」通過實證化、條目化、合理的任務導向以及將法律作為命令與管理官員之工具的觀念，為中國的法律體系奠定了基礎。在最初的架構下由於規則泛濫而引發的危機，經由在唐宋時期臻於成熟的「官僚帝國」編纂一般法典而逐漸獲得剋服。元朝造成了中國的法律與制度的深層斷裂，為明清時期「威權帝國」建立完整且全面之法律體系的最後階段做好了準備。進而，中國在世界上率先施行了真正的法律體系。這個以法典和條例為基礎的法律體系，不僅向普通民衆宣傳普及，而且伴隨著一批注釋性的手冊。由此，威權帝國為中國的現代國家形態奠定了基礎，後者的核心是在清末民初的改革運動中與西方法律接軌的現代法律體系。對中國現行法律體系的評判，應始於對這一偉大的遺產及其現代轉型的闡釋，而非將外來的法律概念強加於其上。

This article is a sequel to a talk delivered at a conference of US and Canadian historians of China. It proceeds from concerns about a sea change in the attitude toward Chinese history, one related to the current deterioration of the relationship between China and the West. Its most manifest expression was the idea that China had only discipline and order, but no genuine law, to provide the basis of a rule of law. It is as if a true legal system must stem from the rule of law as understood in democracies. Contrary to this reductionist vision of law, the article shows that, throughout world history, law was an instrument of domination, and became associated with democratic ideals very late, and not without ambiguity or prevarication. Therefore, a legal system must be assessed not according to recent democratic prejudices of what law should be, but according to its own terms, and its own historical development. This is where Montesquieu’s paradoxical vision of the Chinese empire is enlightening. According to his Spirit of the Law (1748), China was a“despotism,”but in other more confidential writings, Montesquieu mitigated this judgment:“Despotism, certainly, but the best of all,”once its balanced institution and sophisticated legal system are taken into consideration. In other words, the form of the government should not lead one to prejudge the quality if its legal systems. In this spirit, the article retraces the evolution of this legal system, along three main periods. The antique“Warrior Empire”of the Qin and Han dynasties laid the foundation by a positivistic, itemized, rationally task-oriented, concept of Law as a tool for commanding and controlling public agents. The crisis of this first set-up caused by the proliferation of regulations was gradually overcome thanks to the general codification under the“Bureaucratic Empire,”which came to maturity between the Tang and Song dynasties. The profound disruption of Chinese law and institutions by the Yuan dynasty prepared the way for the last phase, which was the edification of a complete and overall legal system by the“Autocratic Empire”of the Ming and Qing dynasties. The Chinese empire was then in advance on the world to implement a genuine legal system, founded on a set of codified laws and regulations, which were publicized towards commoners, accompanied by great array of explicative handbooks. Thus, autocratic empire laid the foundation of the Chinese modern state, with at its core the modern legal system, which was combined with Western legislations during the reform movement of the Late Qing and early Republic. Attempts at assessing the present legal system of China should start by taking into account this great legacy and its modern transformation, instead of imposing on it an extraneous conception of law.