China’s Imperial Institution

Y. Pines
{"title":"China’s Imperial Institution","authors":"Y. Pines","doi":"10.1093/acrefore/9780190277727.013.392","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Emperors were the symbolic and administrative pivot of the Chinese empire ever since its establishment in 221 bce. They were arguably the most powerful human beings on earth. Their nominal authority was limitless, and it encompassed the administrative, military, economic, social, religious, and intellectual spheres to mention only a few. Moreover, the emperors’ semi-sacral status added superhuman dimensions to the imperial position. And yet, only very few emperors were able to impose their will in full. The combination of limitless institutional authority and limited personal power is the major paradox of China’s emperorship.\n The contradiction between the emperor’s nominal omnipotence and his limited ability to impose his personal will on his subjects was imbued into the imperial institution from its very inception. Chinese thinkers of pre-imperial age (pre-221 bce) sought peace and stability in their realm and came to the conclusion that these are attainable only under the omnipotent universal sovereign. Yet being aware of the dangers of the ruler’s potential mediocrity, these thinkers tried to create a system in which the ruler reigns but not rules, and the effective power rests with the ministers of proven intellectual and moral abilities. Although the system they envisioned never worked perfectly and allowed periodic recurrences of the emperors’ abuse of power, overall their goal was achieved. The imperial literati were more often than not able to moderate the emperor’s whims and create a viable mode of rule in which the hereditary monarchy at the top was maintained by the meritocratic bureaucracy below. Despite persistent tensions, the system was flexible enough to ensure the empire’s exceptional political durability.","PeriodicalId":270501,"journal":{"name":"Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Asian History","volume":"6 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-08-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Asian History","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190277727.013.392","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Emperors were the symbolic and administrative pivot of the Chinese empire ever since its establishment in 221 bce. They were arguably the most powerful human beings on earth. Their nominal authority was limitless, and it encompassed the administrative, military, economic, social, religious, and intellectual spheres to mention only a few. Moreover, the emperors’ semi-sacral status added superhuman dimensions to the imperial position. And yet, only very few emperors were able to impose their will in full. The combination of limitless institutional authority and limited personal power is the major paradox of China’s emperorship. The contradiction between the emperor’s nominal omnipotence and his limited ability to impose his personal will on his subjects was imbued into the imperial institution from its very inception. Chinese thinkers of pre-imperial age (pre-221 bce) sought peace and stability in their realm and came to the conclusion that these are attainable only under the omnipotent universal sovereign. Yet being aware of the dangers of the ruler’s potential mediocrity, these thinkers tried to create a system in which the ruler reigns but not rules, and the effective power rests with the ministers of proven intellectual and moral abilities. Although the system they envisioned never worked perfectly and allowed periodic recurrences of the emperors’ abuse of power, overall their goal was achieved. The imperial literati were more often than not able to moderate the emperor’s whims and create a viable mode of rule in which the hereditary monarchy at the top was maintained by the meritocratic bureaucracy below. Despite persistent tensions, the system was flexible enough to ensure the empire’s exceptional political durability.
中国的帝制
自公元前221年建立以来,皇帝一直是中华帝国的象征和行政枢纽。他们可以说是地球上最强大的人类。他们名义上的权力是无限的,它包括行政,军事,经济,社会,宗教和知识领域,仅举几例。此外,皇帝的半神圣地位为皇帝的地位增加了超人的维度。然而,只有极少数皇帝能够完全将自己的意志强加于人。无限制的制度权威与有限的个人权力相结合,是中国皇帝制的主要悖论。天皇名义上的全能与他将个人意志强加于臣民的有限能力之间的矛盾,从一开始就渗透到帝国制度中。前帝国时代(公元前221年以前)的中国思想家在他们的领土上寻求和平与稳定,并得出结论,这些只有在全能的普遍君主下才能实现。然而,由于意识到统治者潜在的平庸的危险,这些思想家试图创造一种统治者统治而不是统治的制度,有效的权力掌握在被证明具有智力和道德能力的大臣手中。尽管他们设想的制度从来没有完美地运行过,并且允许皇帝周期性地滥用权力,但总的来说,他们的目标是实现的。皇帝的文人往往能够缓和皇帝的异想天开,并创造一种可行的统治模式,在这种模式下,上层的世袭君主制由下层的精英官僚机构维持。尽管紧张局势持续存在,但该体系足够灵活,确保了帝国的特殊政治持久性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信