中国古代对于君主专制的批判                                                               李若晖

关于中国古代是否专制社会的讨论，君主是否专制为其中重要关节点。目前在学界比较流行的观点是，中国古代并无君主专制。这一观点的重要支撑点，即是中国古代并无君主专制的自我批评。具体而言，“中国古代并无君主专制的自我批评”又有两种不同的认识：一是“专制”固然是黑暗的，但是中国古代并未将“专制”用于君主，即中国古代并不存在“君主专制”的事实；二是中国古代认为君主就是应该“专制”，即中国古代虽然存在“君主专制”的事实，但在古人的自我认识中却给予了正面评价，“专制”的批判性仅仅针对臣下对于君权的侵夺，换言之，是在维护“君主专制”。通过对古代文献的仔细梳理，可发现数例将“专制”一语用于君主，并对“君主专制”进行抨击的论述。这说明在中国古代的自我认识中，中国古代不但存在“君主专制”的事实，而且还存在着对于“君主专制”的批判。中国古代对于“君主专制”的批判，包含两方面的内容：1.中国古典政治哲学的根基，即是以天下为天下人之天下，而非君主一人之私有；2.为了确保第一点不沦为空论，确立了君相分权的政治制度。君主如不经过宰相（中书省）擅自发布诏命，即是肆意妄为，以天下为一己之私有。

Critique on Autocratic Monarchy in Ancient China                                                Li Ruohui

In the discussion about whether ancient China is an autocratic society, whether the emperors are automatic is an important point. The idea that there is no automatic monarchy in ancient China is very popular in contemporary academia, holding the supporting that there were no self-criticism of automatic monarchy during this long period of time. In this regard, there are two kinds of different understandings: one is that autocracy sure is dark, yet this concept was not applied on the emperors in ancient China, in other words, there did not exist the fact of automatic monarchy in ancient China; and the other is that in ancient China, it was regarded that the emperors should be “automatic”, i.e. although there existed “automatic monarchy” in ancient China, the ancients gave positive evaluation of it, and criticism on autocracy was only directed at the liegeman’s invasion of imperiality, which substantially intended to maintain “automatic monarchy”. However, we can discover several discussions in classical documents which used the word “autocracy” on the emperors, and attacked “automatic monarchy”. This indicates that in the autognosis of ancient China, there existed not only the fact of “automatic monarchy”, but also criticism on it. And this kind of criticism included two aspects: one is the foundation of classical Chinese political philosophy which regards China belonging to people all over the land but not private property of the emperor; and on the other hand, the political system of decentralization between the emperor and Counselor-in-chief was established to insure the foundation descending to mere talk. If the emperor arbitrarily issued edict without the permission of Counselor-in-chief or Secretariat, it would be considered as unscrupulousness of taking the empire of his own.