研究董仲舒之政治思想，以春秋繁露、史記、漢書及其對策、書論、賦頌、文集為主 要資料，並參佐當世及以前與其政治思想有關之記載，與後人著作之引申和評述。為 力求研究態度之客觀及無所偏失，多方旁徵博引，以使理論與史實兼顧。其中雖偶語 涉稱羨或評騭，亦皆出自內心對其思想之體認，非敢故意抑揚損益，妄加臆斷。 本論文之內容分為導論、第一章至第六章、結論。 導論：主要說明董仲舒政治思想之性質與義蘊，俾對其思想先有一概括性之認識。 第一章：董仲舒之牛平與著作。仲舒生於鈿漢初，據考證約在惠帝與呂后年間。景帝 時為博士，善治春秋，學士多師尊之。武帝即位參與賢良對策，任江都相，從此為武 帝所重，位未鼎足，知在公卿之上。中廢為中大夫。因為人廉直，公孫弘嫉之，乃薦 為膠西相，恐久獲罪，病免歸家，以修學著書為事，年老以壽終於家。仲舒所著，皆 明經術之意，及上疏條教，凡百二十三篇，而說春秋事得失，聞舉、玉杯、蕃露．清 明、竹林之屬，復數十篇，十餘萬言。而今所傳者，除漢書所載等外，要為春秋繁露 一書。春秋繁露之真偽問題，論者頗多，惟莫衷一是。吾人以為其書為後人收輯而成 ，縱或非全由仲舒所著，然中多根極理要之言，作為研究其政治思想之用，當無不可 。 第二章：董仲舒政治思想之時代背景與淵源。四漢初七十餘年間，正為中央集權君主 專制形成之過程，亦正是道、法、儒三家思想爭勝之時期。道家思想之全盛是在高祖 至文帝時期，其間採「清靜無為」，與民休養生息之政策，府庫充盈後，思圖以振作 ；文景時代申韓刑名之學興起，法家得勢。及自武帝即位，遂採「罷黜百家，獨尊儒 術」之政策，儒家自此定於一尊，成為中國學術思想之主流，仲舒處於道法儒爭勝之 時代，自亦深受時代之影響，而其思想淵源卻以儒家及陰陽家者為主，故漢書謂仲舒 為「始推陰陽，為儒者宗」。 第三章：董仲舒論人性與正名。仲舒論政以人性為起點，從人性論可了解其論政之態 度。孟子主張性善，於為政重明倫教；化荀子主性惡，其論政重體法制度；仲舒謂性 有善質而未全善，故重仁義禮。 /

Mémoire numérisé par la Direction des bibliothèques de l'Université de Montréal.

University of Macau / Faculty of Arts and Humanities. / Department of Chinese

How and why was imperial power made visually and physically manifest in two similar, contemporaneous megastates - the Roman Principate and Qin-Han China? Framing the Chinese and Roman material within such a question breaks it free from the web of expectations and assumptions in which conventional scholarship almost always situates it. It also builds upon the limited but promising work recently undertaken to study these two empires together in a comparative context. The purpose of this thesis is not to discover similarities and differences for their own sake; but, by discovering similarities and differences, to learn about the nature of imperial authority and prestige in each state. The comparative method compels us to appreciate the contingent - and sometimes frankly curious - nature of visual and artefactual phenomena that have traditionally been taken for granted; and both challenges and empowers us to access higher tier explanations and narratives. Roman expressions of power in visual terms are more public, more historical- biographical, and more political, while Qin-Han images and objects related to imperial authority are generally more private, generic and ritual in their nature. The Roman material emphasizes the notional complicity of large groups of people - the imperial subjects who viewed, crafted and often commissioned these works - in maintaining and defining the emperor's power. If the Han emperor's power was the product of complicity, it was the complicity of a small group of family members and courtiers - and of Heaven. These contrasting sets of power relationships connect to a concerted thematic focus, in the case of Rome, on the individual of the princeps; that is, the individual personage and particular achievements - especially military achievements - of the emperor. This focus is almost always taken for granted in Roman studies, but contrasts profoundly with the thematic disposition of Han artefacts of power: these reflect a concentrated disinterest in imperial personality altogether, emphasizing instead the imperial position; that is, both the office of emperor and a cosmic centrality. While this thesis reveals some arresting contrasts, it also harnesses the dichotomous orientations of Roman and Chinese archaeology to reveal that the conventional understanding of much of this material can be misleading or problematic. Many of the differences in the ways such images are usually interpreted have as much to do with the idiosyncrasies and path dependency of two fields - in short as much to do with the modern viewer - as they do with the images themselves and the traditions that produced them.