龔鵬程對話海外學者第六十三期：在后現代情境中，被技術統治的人類社會，只有強化交談、重建溝通倫理，才能獲得文化新生的力量。這不是誰的理論，而是每個人都應實踐的活動。龔鵬程先生遊走世界，并曾主持過“世界漢學研究中心”。我們會陸續推出“龔鵬程對話海外學者”系列文章，請他對話一些學界有意義的靈魂。范圍不局限于漢學，會涉及多種學科。以期深山長谷之水，四面而出。

托馬斯·康蘭教授（Professor Thomas Conlan）

美國普林斯頓大學東亞歷史教授。

龔鵬程教授：您好。能為我們介紹中世紀日本主權的儀式基礎嗎？

托馬斯·康蘭教授：龔教授，您好。1086年后，人們看到日本在位和退位的天皇都在崛起。在1073-1087年在位的白川天皇（1053-1129）退位后，這個過程首先出現了。但隨后他繼續舉行儀式，監督行政行為，并決定誰在位，直到他1129年去世。

主權的產生不僅僅是通過對王位的任命，而是通過圣駕巡游或頒布儀式來證明一個領主的主權能夠影響世界和上天。

白川和其他放棄王位但行使權力的人，被稱為太上皇（治天の君）。我認為這個詞是指"主權"。

因此，在日本封建王朝中期，主權并不與皇權掛鉤，而是要通過儀式行為、建筑紀念物和宮廷任命來實現或確認的。

實際上，我相信有一個人物，即足利義滿（1358-1408），盡管他從未登上過皇位，但他的母親一方的第一個表親曾是在位天皇，他甚至還擔任過太上皇。

而在足利義滿之后，這個復雜的系統變得更加簡單。在15世紀后期和16世紀，日本天皇傾向于既統治又管理，盡管實際上他們的行政權力受到了相當大的限制，特別是在1551年的動蕩以及1615年一系列限制他們活動的規定之后。

After 1086, one sees the rise of both reigning and retired emperors in Japan. The process, which first occurred when the emperor Shirakawa (1053-1129) who reigned as emperor from 1073-1087 abdicated, but then continued performing rituals, overseeing administrative actions, and determining who was on the throne until his death in 1129. Sovereign authority came not just through appointment to the throne, but rather through processions or the promulgation of rites which demonstrated that a lord was sovereign, capable of influencing the world and the heavens. Shirakawa and others who had abdicated the throne, but exercised power, became known as the lord who rules (chiten no kimi). I believe that this term denotes ‘sovereignty.’ Thus, in Japan during its middle period, sovereignty was not tied prescriptively to the imperial throne, but had to be performed, or asserted ritual acts, architectural monuments, and court appointments. I actually believe that one figure, Ashikaga Yoshimitsu (1358-1408) even served as a chiten no kimi despite the fact that he had never ascended the throne, although his first cousin on his mother’s side had been a reigning emperor. After Yoshimitsu, however, this complex system became more straightforward, and over the course of the later fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, Japanese emperors tended to both reign and rule, although in practice their administrative authority was rather constrained, particularly after the turmoil of 1551, and a series of regulations that limited their activities in 1615.

龔鵬程教授：日本的戰爭史其實很豐富。對內，爭斗不斷；對外也是與唐、元、明、琉球、朝鮮、俄羅斯都不斷發生戰爭，故一談到日本，至今都還令人想起刀來。似乎沒有其他民族如此以刀為象征的，您能分析一下嗎？

托馬斯·康蘭教授：讓我把我的回答分為兩點。首先，刀象征著武士地位的想法只出現在1590年代，即武士團創建之時；此前，武士通常是弓箭的使用者。

在我的研究中，我也表明，刀并不是一種主要的戰斗武器；相反，那時候是用（投射物）弓，然后在1600年后，用槍或（沖擊武器）長矛。刀大多用于自衛，或作為禮物，而不是一種主要的戰斗武器。

接下來，關于戰爭，我想起了華萊士·史蒂文斯的一首詩《混沌鑒賞家》中的一節，其中寫道：

"暴力秩序乃無序，宏大無序亦秩序。二者實為一"。

我這樣說，是因為日本確實發生過內戰，但在十六世紀之前，傷亡相對較少。一場戰爭或戰斗最多可能涉及數百人的傷亡，而不是數千或數萬人。

同時，國家也沒有死刑。在一個著名的案例中，將軍源賴朝處決了一個人，后來這個人的家人殺死了劊子手。

因此，同樣直到16世紀，國家并沒有"壟斷政治暴力"，所以雖然有很多戰斗，但很少有人被處決。

相比之下，在德川時代，社會有"和平"，但有許多人被處決。

因此，我想知道暴力的總體水平是否保持不變。(比如明朝的洪武皇帝也是如此。在他的統治下，社會有和平，但他處決了多少人，30,000人？我不確定這些數字是否可信，這個數字遠遠大于同一時期在日本戰死的人。）

Let me divide my answer into two points. The first, the idea of the sword as symbolizing the warrior status only occurs in the 1590s, when the samurai order was created; previously warriors were known as practitioners of the way of the bow and arrow. In my research, I show too that swords were not a dominant battle weapon; rather it was (for projectiles) bows and then, after 1600, guns or (shock weapon) pikes. Swords were mostly used for self defense, or as gifts, and were not a prominent battle weapon.

Next, concerning war, I am reminded of a stanza from a poem (“Connoisseur of Chaos”) by Wallace Stevens which states: “A violent order is disorder; and a great disorder is an order. These two things are one.” I say this because Japan did witness civil wars, but before the sixteenth century, casualties were relatively low. A war or battle might involve at the most hundreds of casualties, not thousands or tens of thousands. At the same time, the state did not have capital punishment. In one famous case, the general Minamoto Yoritomo executed a man and the man’s family later killed the executioner. Thus, again until the sixteenth century, the state did not “monopolize political violence” and so although you had many battles but almost no executions. By contrast, during the Tokugawa era, you have “peace” but many executions. So, I wonder if the general level of violence remains the same. (The same holds true for say Emperor Hongwu of the Ming. Under his rule you have peace, but he executed how many, 30,000? I am not sure if these numbers are believable, that that number is far greater than any who died in battles in Japan at the same time.)

龔鵬程教授：日本近代對土地的熱愛，好像有點奇怪。清朝時，日本就為了爭奪東北與俄國開戰，又與德國爭山東，后來進攻中國、席卷整個東亞南洋。近年仍一直在云南、新疆、甘肅、馬來西亞調查、研究。您對此有何看法？

托馬斯·康蘭教授：偉大的法國歷史學家馬克·布洛赫曾經說過，引用一句老話，"人與他們的時代相似，而不是與他們的父親相似"。他的意思是，時代在變化，而行動則對應于特定的時刻。就清朝而言，日本的行動與英國、法國、德國、俄羅斯和美國的行動相似，因為所有這些國家的領導人都覺得有必要直接殖民土地和控制天然資源。這種想法產生于19世紀后半葉，并得到廣泛認同，導致了非洲、東南亞、中國的部分地區、菲律賓和其他地區的殖民化。

雖然19世紀80年代和90年代的人很像，都認為強大的國家需要殖民地來控制自然資源，但當然我們生活在不同的時代，我不認為這與現在有任何聯系；同樣，這個過程也沒有什么是日本獨有的，因為19世紀末的許多國家都試圖在做同樣的事情。

The Great French Historian Marc Bloch once said that, quoting an old phrase, “Men resemble their times more than they do their fathers.” What he means is that times change, and that actions correspond to a specific moment. In the case of the Qing dynasty, the actions of Japan resembled that of England, France, Germany, Russia and the US in that the leaders of all of these states felt the need to directly colonize lands and control natural resources. This idea arose in the latter half of the nineteenth century and was widely shared, leading to the colonization of Africa, Southeast Asia, bits of China, the Philippines and other regions. Although the people of the 1880s and 1890s resembled each other, and all thought that powerful states needed colonies to control natural resources, but certainly we live in different times, and I don’t think there is any link to the present; likewise, there is nothing about the process unique to Japan as many countries in the late nineteenth century tried doing this same thing.

龔鵬程教授：您提到日本大內氏統治的貿易網絡，我很有興趣，因為日本在長崎等地也有鄭芝龍這類家族，經營臺灣廈門這一帶的海上貿易。對此，您可再補充說說嗎？

托馬斯·康蘭教授：大內氏是我目前研究的主題，我希望明年能出版一本專著，題目是《無名分的國王：1350-1569年失落的日本大內氏統治史》。

我對大內氏很感興趣，因為他們揭示了一個對世界非常開放并廣泛參與海上貿易的日本。大內氏是熟練的商人，控制著許多日本的銀礦和銅礦。在明朝的鄭和停止航行后，他們就開始駕駛大型船只參與貿易活動。

此外，他們還建立了獨特的民族身份，并聲稱自己是古代朝鮮國王的后代。1518年后，大內氏獲得了原屬于足利將軍的"日本國王 "印章，這使他們能夠以日本國王的身份行事，然后與中國、朝鮮甚至東南亞進行各種貿易。

大內氏控制著一個非常廣大和高效的貿易網絡，這個網絡一直持續到16世紀50年代。在16世紀50年代大內氏崩潰后，大家會看到更多的競爭性商人崛起，公海上的暴力事件也更多。但他們的全盛時期是在長崎成為一個重要港口之前。

The ōuchi are the subject of my current research and I hope to publish a monograph next year, entitled: “Kings in All but Name: The Lost History of ōuchi Rule in Japan 1350-1569.”

I find the ōuchi interesting because they reveal a Japan that was very open to the world and extensively engaging in maritime trade. The ōuchi were skilled traders who were able to control many Japanese silver and copper mines. They started manning massive ships which were involved in trade just after Zheng He of the Ming Dynasty stop his voyages. In addition, they established a distinct ethnic identity and claimed to be descended from ancient Korean kings. After 1518, the ōuchi secured “King of Japan” seals which had belonged to the Ashikaga shoguns, and this enabled them to act as if they were kings of Japan and then conducted varied trade with China, Korea, and even Southeast Asia. The ōuchi controlled a very extensive and effective trading network, which lasted through the 1550s. After the ōuchi collapse in the 1550s you see the rise of many more competing traders and much more violence on the high seas. But their heyday was before Nagasaki became an important harbour.

龔鵬程，1956年生于臺北，臺灣師范大學博士，當代著名學者和思想家。著作已出版一百五十多本。

辦有大學、出版社、雜志社、書院等，并規劃城市建設、主題園區等多處。講學于世界各地。并在北京、上海、杭州、臺北、巴黎、日本、澳門等地舉辦過書法展。現為中國孔子博物館名譽館長、美國龔鵬程基金會主席