Man from the Margin: Cao Cao and the Three Kingdoms

The Fifty-first George Ernest Morrison Lecture in Ethnology 1990

by Dr Rafe de Crespigny

Faculty of Asian Studies
Australian National University

Cao Cao was born in 155 AD, a subject of the dynasty of Later Han. His father, Cao Song, was the adopted son of a eunuch at court, and rose through influence and bribery to the highest position in the imperial bureaucracy. Cao Cao himself occupied a number of middle-range posts at the capital until 189, when the general Dong Zhuo took advantage of a failed coup detat and claimed power for himself.

The civil war which followed destroyed the authority of the empire, and for ten years the heart of China was ravaged and ruined by ragged armies of adventurers, in an infinite permutation of alliances and treachery.

From this confusion, Cao Cao emerged in triumph. He established a coherent government with the Emperor as his puppet, and by 200, when he defeated his chief rival in battle by the Yellow River, he was the master of north China.

In 208, however, when Cao Cao sought to extend his control to the south, he was defeated and driven back at the battle of the Red Cliffs, and he never succeeded in breaking the line of the Yangzi. When Cao Cao died in 220, his state of Wei still faced two major rivals: Shu-Han in the west under Liu Bei; and Wu in the south under the Sun family.

Forty years later, the Sima family seized power from Cao Caos successors and established their own dynasty of Jin, and they conquered Shu and Wu to restore a short-lived unity to the Chinese world. The position, however, was always insecure and after little more than twenty years the empire was divided again, with the north dominated by alien, non-Chinese rulers and peoples. Not until the end of the sixth century did a single state hold sway once more over the civilized world of China.

At this stage, let me offer some justification for the discussion of events so long ago and dynasties so far away. The heroes of the Three Kingdoms, Cao Cao, his colleagues and his rivals, have a notable place in the traditions of the Chinese people. They are celebrated in poetry and drama, their deeds are recounted in cycles of stories, and the policies and crises of their time have been the center of intellectual and popular debate in modern China.

In that respect, the romance of the Three Kingdoms holds a place among the Chinese people comparable to the tales of King Arthur, of Charlemagne and his paladins or, still more relevant to the present world, of Richard Lionheart and his Crusaders. And if we consider this last example, and the present events in the Middle East, we can recognize how certain events in the past, whether or not they are adequately recorded or properly understood, can influence our perceptions and actions in the present and the future.

I shall not deal here with the romantic tradition of the Three Kingdoms: I think we can take that as given, and well recognized among those who study the field. But since the Morrison Lectures are concerned to address the ethnography of China, and since the matter of the Three Kingdoms has been a significant strand in Chinese popular culture for almost two thousand years, I ask this question: what is it that has made the history of the Three Kingdoms so special? And since I am basically a historian, I seek to answer that question by discussing the history, the society and the people of that time.

So if we deal with that age as it really was, one question is: why Three Kingdoms? For scholars of recent times, looking back over two thousand years of China, the important pattern is that of the great dynasties, from Han to Tang to Song to Ming to Qing, uniting all under Heaven for centuries at a time, with physical boundaries generally coterminous with the extent of Chinese civilization.

If, however, we look precisely at the end of Han, we must recognize that the fall of the unified empire was followed by four hundred years of political division: an age as long as the Han dynasty itself. The fall of Han was absolute, and it required a different combination of circumstances for Sui and Tang to restore the unity which had been lost for so long.

Yet there was always a tradition that the civilized world should be reunited. During the last days of Han, there were omens and debates on the succession: after twice twelve generations, the virtue of the imperial Liu clan was ending, and who should take over the government? It was, nonetheless, assumed that government would remain to be taken ^_ no-one expected the whole edifice would break into pieces. There might be a brief period of confusion, but the natural pattern of unity and peace should be restored.

From this point of view the reputation of Cao Cao has suffered: he re-established government in the heart-land of China, but he did not destroy his two chief rivals, and the state which he founded was swiftly subverted and destroyed. As a result, rather than receiving praise for creating a measure of order out of chaos, Cao Cao receives blame for not doing more ^_ and in Confucianist analysis this political failure is explained by a lack of personal virtue. So Cao Cao is painted as cruel and cunning, a brilliant but flawed tyrant, the man against whom the loyal Liu Bei, the brave Guan Yu and the brilliant Zhuge Liang, all men of Shu-Han, could demonstrate their wisdom, nobility and skill.

If, however, we escape from political moralizing, and look more objectively at the reality of empire in traditional China, then the picture becomes a little different.

By the middle of the second century AD, the Han dynasty was bankrupt, not only in economic terms, but socially and politically

剩余内容已隐藏，支付完成后下载完整资料

边缘人：曹操和三国

人种论1990——乔治·欧内斯特·莫里森五十一场讲座

Rafe de Crespigny博士

亚洲研究学科

澳大利亚国家大学

曹操出生于汉朝末期，公元155年。其父曹嵩是宫中宦官的养子。曹嵩通过个人影响和贿赂晋升到了中央权力的最高位置。公元189年，大将董卓挟天子以令诸侯之时，曹操本人也在洛阳担任了许多重要官职。

随后的诸侯战争摧毁了汉王朝的统治。中原地区在诸侯混战中长期处于混乱的状态。

曹操心怀天下，取得一系列胜利后，他在混战中崭露头角。挟天子以令诸侯，建立起了统一的政权。公元200年，官渡之战大胜后，曹操称霸了北方，

而到208年，曹操控制南方的企图被赤壁之战打破。他无法将权力延伸到长江一带。直到220年曹操辞世，他建立的魏政权仍然面领着两大主要对手：西部刘备统治下的蜀汉以及南方孙氏统治下的吴政权。

曹操死后40年，司马氏篡夺了曹操建立的政权，建立起了晋朝。他们征服了蜀、吴，恢复了中原地区的短暂统一。然而天下大势合久必分，二十多年后，晋王朝再次分裂。中国北部受异族政权统治。直到六世纪末，中原地区才有了完整独立的统一政权。

在这个基础上，曹操的事迹发生的时代和地点都距我们如此之远。对于这些事迹的讨论，我将提供一些数据。三国时代的英雄——曹操、曹操的同僚和他的敌手，在中国传统文化中都是引人注目的。中国人用诗歌和戏剧颂扬他们，用一系列故事再现他们的事迹。三国时代的政策以及重大转折性的历史事件一直是当代中国学者和大众争论的焦点。

从这个角度来看，三国故事在中国是可以与亚瑟王、查理曼大帝和他的十二圣骑士以及更近一些的狮心王理查十字军的传说相媲美的。参考最新的案例以及目前在中东发生着的事件，我们可以发现无论是否得到了充分的记录和确切的理解，特定的历史事件是以怎样的方式影响着我们当下乃至未来的观念和行为。

我不应对将三国故事浪漫化的传统妥协：我认为我们会接受，并敬佩那些研究这个领域的学者。但自从莫里森演讲被认为解释了中国的人种论，自从有关三国的争议在中国的流行文化中存在了奖金两千年后，我有一个疑问：三国历史为何如此特殊？并且既然我是一个历史学者，我试图通过研究历史，社会以及当代的人文来解决这个问题。

真实地回顾那个时代，一个问题是：为何是三国？根据近代以来的学者研究，回顾中国两千年的历史，从汉到唐、宋、明、清，，伟大王朝的典范对于统一疆土，以及不断扩展中的中华文明的边疆防线是最重要的。

然而真正研究汉末的历史，我们必须承认这个统一王朝自身的衰落是由四百年的政治分裂导致的：这个分裂从汉朝伊始就开始了。汉朝的覆灭是必然的，要恢复失落已久的和平，就要求有隋和唐这样的多元文化融合的政权。

然而天下大势分久必合。汉朝末期，政权更迭是有征兆，并存在争议的：经过二十四朝皇帝，刘汉王朝的盛景走向灭亡，那么谁将得到王权呢？虽然如此，统治者仍幻想着政权的延续——没有人希望整个帝国大厦分崩离析。可能有一段混乱的时期，但是统一和平的自然法则必然会恢复的。

从这个观点来看，对曹操的评价收到了影响：他在中原腹地重新建立了政权，但他没有消灭他的两个主要对手，并且他建立的统治很快被颠覆摧毁。结果是对于曹操，比起对他在混乱中创造了秩序的赞誉，由于他没有更进一步建立稳固的政权——根据儒家的观点来看，这个政治上的失败是由于曹操缺乏品德。所以与皇族刘备，英勇的关羽，智慧的诸葛亮这些蜀汉英雄的智慧、荣誉以及才能相反，曹操被刻画成了冷酷、狡诈、聪明但有性格缺陷的暴君。

然而摆脱政治道德的束缚，更客观地看待古代中国，结果会有所不同。

公元2世纪中叶前夕，汉王朝不仅在经济上，在社会上、政治上也破产了。经济危机的源头最早可追溯到一世纪早期，光武帝推翻王莽恢复汉室的战争时期。新的统治者将他的成功归因为强大的诸侯家族的支持，这些家族的力量足以使中央政权无力控制他们在地方上的权益和行为。士族控制着权力机关人才的任用，以权谋私。汉末，新政权无法控制地方，中央无法充分利用国家资源，是地方势力的一大体现。

由此开始的负面影响与错误的军事政策相结合。在一世纪末，两个最重要的政治集团，窦宪覆灭了北方匈奴（今天的蒙古）的政权，班超在中亚（今天的新疆）重新建立起了中国的统治。这两名大将都与朝廷有着密切的联系。他们的成就受到了国际中国评论家的高度赞扬， 他们的胜利产生的影响遍及全国。

从政策上来看，稳固而有序的匈奴政权的覆灭在帝国北疆产生了政治真空：这个真空后来被无序而又野蛮的鲜卑族填补。而西部，对于中亚的长期统治使得中国政府力不从心。但是随着叛乱爆发，军阀割据，信仰失落，掀起了兵变和农民起义。实际上，从107到118年，中国西北部在异族羌人的侵略下一片荒芜。这种情况一直持续，到二世纪中叶，中国北部以及西北部不是处于国家政权管辖之外，就是不断受到外族入侵。

传统观念中，是二、三世纪的政策制订者导致了中原北部落入“蛮人”之手：我的论点是，种族灭绝和迁徙——这是这一结果的直接原因，是由窦宪和班超耗费巨大的战争直接导致的。

这一军事灾难对于后汉政权产生了严重的影响。随后，战争的花费对中央财政支出造成了巨大的压力。从长远来看，领土遭蹂躏，尤其是在西部地区，资源流失，意味着税收的减少需要在别处填补，尤其是在稳定繁荣的黄河平原。这不可避免地产生了两个结果：衰弱的中央政权无力争夺地方的利益；争夺引起了反抗和分裂。

这种情形在都城洛阳还在政治上产生了影响。纵观整个汉代，王位继承着被希望，并且经常被要求与一个名门望族出身的女子联姻，这些家族中的男子总是在朝堂中身居高位。夺取西汉政权的“篡权者”王莽的地位，就是建立在这种关系的基础上的；英勇的大将窦宪和班超是皇室姻亲；二世纪初，太后邓氏和她的家族控制了朝廷；刘氏王权旁落，外戚轮流当政。每一氏族都企图通过性政策和结党维持自身的统治。但每个当政的家族都在一两代后被推翻。有时，皇帝在这些强大实力和他们的“保护”下形同虚设，但他被迫渐渐依赖宦官的支持。宦官是官方指定的后宫的保护者和监管者，他们接近政权制订者，这使得他们有机会对新政策与信使和受到信任的政权机构同步做出反应。

159年，汉桓帝导致了刘姓皇室的毁灭，他完全依赖宦官的支持。此外，显然他还依靠外戚的“帮助”，因为他们既是对刘氏王权的威胁，同时他们又将刘氏尊为统治阶级的领导者。汉桓帝剩下十年的统治依赖着宦官以及他们的关系，他开始巴结宦官，试图在朝堂上为宦官开辟一席之地。他168年去世之时，士族希望能从新的摄政者窦武手上获得更多，窦武的女儿是汉桓帝的皇后，她常威胁汉桓帝做违背意愿的事。而几个月后，宦官对窦武一党发起了政变，他们得到了御林军的支持，在后二十年中攫取了汉灵帝统治政权。在刘氏政权的独裁时期，许多敌对的士族发展了起来。士族被称为“正统”，后来又被认为应该废除，这些人试图维持理想化的儒家道德，通过强大的政治家反对腐朽的政府统治。这个民族的大部分领导者和英雄来自中下层士族，他们得到了政治大学中的学生的充分支持——三万喊着口号，为帝都街道、城墙涂脂抹彩的勇士。然而，悲哀的是，像后代其他理想道德家一样，正统士族比起为国家问题提出具有实践性的解决办法，更多是在批评那些掌控国家权力的人。他们已然被引导着支持只考虑自身利益的“改良者”。他们与梁氏的覆灭无关。他们对土地割据的反对转变成了汉桓帝的统治和宦官的更强烈的责备。

公元166年，与社会舆论小规模斗争了几年后，宦官劝服皇帝流放了士族的领袖。派系人士短暂地成为了窦武的支持力量，但当宦官168年重新获得了权力，他们肯定地将他们的胜利归功于对敌人的肃清和对其的禁止，禁令持续了15年。

剩余内容已隐藏，支付完成后下载完整资料

资料编号：[27421]，资料为PDF文档或Word文档，PDF文档可免费转换为Word