9.《三国志》卷12.367。关于私立学院的发展，参见贾保罗（Robert P. Kramers），“儒家学派的发展”，载《剑桥中国史》，第1卷《秦汉帝国，公元前221年至公元220年》，崔瑞德和鲁惟一 编（剑桥：剑桥大学出版社，1986年），第764至765页。
10. SGZ 12.367.
11. SGZ 12.369.
12.关于“望”一词，意为“声望”或“威望”的讨论，参见矢野主税，“关于‘望’的意义”（望の意义について），《长崎大学教育学部社会科学研究论丛》21（1972年）：第1至16页。
13. SGZ 24.679.
14. SGZ 24.681.
15. For the wife, see JS 44.1259, 67.1785. For Cui Hao’s descent, see Xia, Zhong gu shi jia da zu Qinghe Cui shi yan jiu, 69–70.
16. See Jonathan Skaff’s comments in his review (Journal of Chinese Studies 61 [2015]: 365–69) on Nicolas Tackett’s Destruction of the Medieval Chinese Aristocracy (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Asia Center, 2014).
17. Commented on by many, including some in note 6, this is best summed up by Dien in his Six Dynasties Civilization, 14, saying, “the groups so labelled were neither powerful nor aristocratic nor clans.” For discussion of how the Mongols took a very different path, employing outsiders as their ruling agents in the Chinese world, see Brose, Subjects and Masters.
18. Holcombe, Shadow of the Han, 82, discusses the “fetish with these rites” that contributed to these men’s special status.
19. For Dong Zhuo’s destruction of the city, see Rafe de Crespigny, Fire over Luoyang: A History of the Later Han Dynasty, 23–220 ad (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2017), 456–65.
20. Lewis, The Early Chinese Empires, 115–27.
21. ZZTJ 86.2711. For a full study of the disorders, see Miyakawa Hisayuki 宫川尚志, Rikuchō shi kenkyū: seiji, shakai hen 六朝史研究: 政治·社会篇 (Tokyo: Nihon Gakujutsu Shinkōkai, 1956), Chapter 1, Sections 2 and 3.
22. JS 4.102.
23. JS 59.1618; ZZTJ 85.2696.
24. Mark Edward Lewis, China between Empires: The Northern and Southern Dynasties (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2009), 58–59.
25. ZZTJ 85.2693, 2698.
26. On the Taiyuan Wangs, see Fan Zhaofei 范兆飞, Zhong gu Taiyuan shi zu qun ti yan jiu 中古太原士族群体研究 (Beijing: Zhonghua shu ju, 2014).
27. ZZTJ 85.2699; JS 101.2647. The first clause is literally 今司马氏骨肉相残.
28. ZZTJ 85.2701; JS 101.2649.
29. ZZTJ 85.2699; JS 101.2647.
30. ZZTJ 85.2701; JS 39.1147.
31. ZZTJ 85.2701. For Yilu’s later alliance with Liu Kun, discussed in Chapter 5, see ZZTJ 87.2752–53.
32. For Zhang Fang’s biography, see JS 60.1644–46. Zhang was originally himself from Hejian (seat near mod. Xianxian, northern Shandong), and had traveled west to Guanzhong with his prince. Of the two terms in the title of Mi··evi·’s “Oligarchy or Social Mobility,” it is the latter that has the greater import in this example at least.
33. ZZTJ 85.2701; JS 44.1258.
34. ZZTJ 85.2704; JS 60.1645.
35. ZZTJ 85.2704; JS 44.1258.
36. ZZTJ 85.2704 (for location of the fort, about two miles west of the city, see Hu Sanxing’s note at ZZTJ 87.2763); JS 60.1645.
37. The figures are very rough: for more precise figures of the Cao Wei walls on which the walls of the Jin city were based, see the estimates given by Dien, Six Dynasties Civilization, 25; and Victor Xiong, Capital Cities and Urban Form in Pre-modern China: Luoyang, 1038 bce to 938 ce (London and New York: Routledge, 2017), Chapter 3.
38. ZZTJ 85.2705; JS 4.104.
39. Shui jing zhu shu 15.1321, 1317–18.
40. From records of this Jiankang campaign came much of the information given in Shui jing zhu 15, the source of this section.
41. Shui jing zhu shu 15.1302, 1301.
42. Shui jing zhu shu 15.1298, 1296.
43. Mark Edward Lewis, The Construction of Space in Early China (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2006), 213.
44. See fuller discussion of the terms’ meaning in Ku Saek-h·i 具圣姬, Liang Han Wei Jin Nan Bei chao de wu bi 两汉魏晋南北朝的坞壁 (Beijing: Min zu chu ban she, 2004), 9.
45. Ku, Wu bi, 37. For R. Allen Brown, English Castles (London: B. T. Batsford, 1962), 17, the definition of a “castle,” in England at least, was that it was “the private fortress and residence of a lord.”
46. See Chen Yinke 陈寅恪, “Tao hua yuan ji pang zheng” 桃花源记旁证, in his Chen Yinke xian sheng quan ji, 2 vols. (Taibei: Jiu si chu ban you xian gong si, 1977), 2: 1169–78.
47. Ku, Wu bi, 11, citing Yuan Hong 袁宏 (d. ca. 376), Hou Han ji 后汉记 juan 4: 坏其营垒, 无使复聚.
48. Lewis, “Han Abolition of Universal Military Service,” 33–36.
49. These were heritable: see examples given in JS 57.1563, 1552.
50. See Appendix 2 in Luo Tonghua 罗彤华, Han dai de liu min wen ti 汉代的流民问题 (Taibei: Taiwan xue sheng shu ju, 1989), 296, 303; and the description of Yingchuan in Howard L. Goodman, “Sites of Recognition: Burial, Mourning, and Commemoration in the Xun Family of Yingchuan, AD 140–305,” EMC 15 (2009): 55–60. Overall, the empire’s taxable population fell by more than 10 million, from almost 60,000,000 to just a little more than 47 (Luo, Han dai de liu min, 302, 309). The drop was even more dramatic in frontier commanderies like Yunzhong, which went from more than 173,000 in Former Han down to fewer than 27,000 (299, 306). In the latter case, at least, it certainly was southward flight, though part at least of the population of Han subjects was replaced by groups unwilling to register for Han’s levies.
51. Lewis, The Early Chinese Empires, 27.
52. See a mid-sixth-century anecdote of an army passing by such a little fort, in Scott Pearce, “Who and What Was Hou Jing·,” EMC 6 (2000): 69. Chen Shuang 陈爽 discusses what did remain of local military power in the Yellow River area in his “Lue lun Bei chao de xiang cun wu zhuang” 略论北朝的乡村武装, in 1–6 shi ji Zhongguo bei fang bian jiang, min zu, she hui guo ji xue shu yan tao hui lun wen ji, ed. Jilin daxue gu ji yan jiu suo (Beijing: Ke xue chu ban she, 2008), 299–311.
53. See description of these processes, beginning in the Han and extending into the early medieval, in Keith Knapp, Selfless Offspring: Filial Children and Social Order in Early Medieval China (Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 2005). If not the same, a similar line of thought was pursued by Tanigawa Michio in his studies of medieval Chinese community (kyōdōtai) and its leaders; see comments in Chapter 2 note 2.
54. For discussion of the power of text in the Chinese world, see Mark Edward Lewis, Writing and Authority in Early China (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1999), who says among other things that “the final triumph of the textual realm over the administrative reality did not take place until the fall of the Han. . . . Opposition [to the court] took the form of networks of local families bound together through ties of teacher and disciple. They were committed, with more or less sincerity, to textual studies that defined them and constituted their claim to authority. Thus when the reality of imperial power collapsed, it survived as a dream, or rather as a mass of signs, in the parallel realm formed by the canon and its associated texts. Only by recreating the order articulated in these literary works could the great families secure the honored states and the income from office that were essential to their continuity. Having been disseminated from the old philosophical traditions to the new elite through the agency of the state, the textual dream at last swallowed up the political reality” (10–11). More generally, Goody, The Power of the Written Tradition, 56, points out that “[w]riting helps to change not only orthodoxy but the notion of orthodoxy and, I believe, of truth and identity.” Some sense of the authority held by text masters is seen in Herbert Fingarette’s Confucius: The Secular as Sacred (New York: Harper & Row, 1972); and on the Ru canon, see Nylan, The Five “Confucian” Classics.
55. Note that “great community,” da tong, using variant characters 大同, 大统, etc., appears repeatedly in era names of sixth-century regimes, of both the south and the north.
56. Li Jizhong 李继忠 and Niu Jin 牛劲 do quite a good job describing the main shape of the Chinese tradition, in this period at least, in their Bei Wei she hui sheng huo zhi liu bian 北魏社会生活之流变 (Changchun: Jilin da xue chu ban she, 2009), 3–4. As seen in the Introduction, in discussion of Chittick’s The Jiankang Empire, there are many possibilities for definition of such terms as “Chinese,” or “China.” One useful set of approaches to this complex issue is to be had in Mullaney et al., eds., Critical Han Studies: The History, Representation, and Identity of China’s Majority. In one chapter in that book, “Hushuo: The Northern Other and the Naming of the Han Chinese,” Mark Elliott puts forth the interesting idea that while “Hu” was a Chinese invention, placed upon peoples to the north, “so the name ‘Han’—that is, a label for people who, by descent, language and cultural practice, were recognized as Central Plains dwellers (or their descendants)—was largely the invention of the people of the steppe” (174). Elliott is in part building on the work of Yang, “Becoming Zhongguo, Becoming Han,” who suggests this took full shape during the Northern Dynasties.
57. Jin, Yongjia luan hou, 48.
58. SGZ 6.176.
59. ZZTJ 87.2749; JS 5.120.
60. More literally the “feathered, or winged, summons” (yuxi 羽檄), a call-to-arms with a feather attached to indicate need for immediate response: HYDCD 9: 641.
61. ZZTJ 87.2754; JS 5.121.
62. ZZTJ 87.2754.
63. JS 104.2707–8. Note Shi Le’s use as an unfree farmer.
64. As an example, we see the pipa-playing Ruan Xian’s infatuation with a “Serbi slave girl” 鲜卑婢: Shi shuo xin yu jiao jian 世说新语校笺, comp. Xu Zhen’e 徐震堮 (Taibei: Wen shi zhe chu ban she, 1985), 23.395; tr. by Richard Mather, A New Account of Tales of the World (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1976), 376–77 (with reference to JS 49.1362–64). The girl belonged to his aunt, and after fulfilling his infatuation he is said to have written the aunt, telling her that “The Hu barbarian slave girl has now given birth to a Hu barbarian son.” For another example of reference to Serbi as slave, see Shi shuo xin yu jiao jian 27.456 (Mather, tr. New Account, 443). And see also Huang, “Tuoba Xianbei zao qi guo jia,” 84–90.
65. ZZTJ 86.2710; JS 104.2709.
66. For discussion of wu bi controlled by non-Chinese, see Zhang Mingming 张明明 and Fan Zhaofei 范兆飞, “Shi liu guo Bei Wei shi qi de wu bi jing ji” 十六国北魏时期的坞壁经济, Zhongguo she hui jing ji shi yan jiu (2011.2): 14–21.
67. ZZTJ 86.2732; JS 104.2710.
68. ZZTJ 87.2755; JS 5.121.
69. ZZTJ 87.2760–61; JS 59.1625–26.
70. ZZTJ 87.2760.
71. ZZTJ 87.2761–62.
72. ZZTJ 87.2762
73. ZZTJ 87.2763.
74. See the map provided in Xiong, Capital Cities and Urban Form, 67.
75. For the inner walls, see Xiong, Capital Cities and Urban Form, 66.
76. ZZTJ 87.2763. On the imperial palace, or “Southern Palace,” see Xiong, Capital Cities and Urban Form, 66; on the Grand Culmen “Basilica,” 63.
77. ZZTJ 87.2763. On the Floral Grove Garden, see Xiong, Capital Cities and Urban Form, 64.
78. Xiong, Capital Cities and Urban Form, 68, estimates a population that rose to the high 300,000s during the Jin period.
79. ZZTJ 87.2758.
80. W. B. Henning, “The Date of the Sogdian Ancient Letters,” BSOAS 12.3/4 (1948): 605; Arthur Waley, “Lo-yang and its Fall,” in his The Secret History of the Mongols, and Other Pieces (New York: Barnes and Noble, 1964), 54–55.
9
涉珪所创造的世界
在前一章中，我们通过一系列历史片段看到了涉珪即将进入的那个富饶但饱受摧残的世界——这些历史画面最终以311年洛阳城的毁灭达到高潮。当涉珪于85年后来到中原平原时，洛阳仍是一片废墟。他甚至没有造访这座遗址，尽管他的后裔孝文帝将在约一个世纪后重建该城并迁都至此。398年正月完成对中原平原的征服后，涉珪所做的第一件事就是巡视新占领的疆土，尤其饶有兴致地在邺城长时间驻留。1随后他将部分战利品运回大同盆地，其中应包括从慕容部手中夺取的粮食与武器——这些物资本身也是慕容部在十多年前征服所得。2还包括数万名人口，这是北魏通过强制迁徙"充实"其高原新兴"京畿地区"的早期例证。3
一万名劳工被征调来修筑道路：这条道路从今河北唐县地区向北延伸入山，随后连接起一系列山谷信道，途经灵丘镇直抵桑干河上游。4不久后，涉珪率军带领约十万迁徙者北上。5这必定是段残酷的旅程：迁徙者在隆冬时节徒步行走，沿着刚开辟的长约300英里（约483公里）的道路，从平原爬升数千英尺（数百米）的海拔。在《魏书·崔宏传》中，涉珪被描绘成某种鼓舞者形象——有次他登上恒山（赵氏那位“无情者”曾攀登过的同一座山峰。）山顶激励新臣民。人们不禁好奇这些民众对他的看法。根据记载，当涉珪遇见崔宏时，因见其搀扶年迈母亲徒步翻越山岭而大悦，赐予他们米粮与牛车，并坚持让其他无法前行者也可乘坐牛车。6数周后抵达时，这些人口大多被安置在大同盆地——这个涉珪即将正式确立的"王畿"（或称"京邑"）。7该区域本质上以大同盆地为核心构成，其疆域南起阴馆（位于桑干河与雁门关北侧之间），北至参合；西自善无山地（今山西右玉附近），东达旧汉朝代郡（今河北蔚县东北）。这最后提到的代郡位于向东延伸的谷地农耕区支脉中。在此区域中心，涉珪将在半年后着手建造新的"平城"。
曾几何时，所有道路都通向平城。8虽然道武帝的灵丘道从东南方穿越太行山而来，但更直接南向的通道交汇于雁门关——进入大同盆地的主要入口。从东方而来的迂回路线，自今北京及其郊区所在区域陡然攀升至上谷（今延庆），继而沿桑干河穿过高地直达平城。9从东北方的满洲延伸而来的，是我们先前见过的路线——可能正是443年太武帝派往嘎仙洞的使团所经之路。从草原方向，人们可直接由北面穿越参合坡（今阳高附近）进入盆地，或从西北方穿越阴山，经呼和浩特现代城区正北方的"白道"关口——大致沿国道G209线延伸——跨越土默特平原抵达桑干河上游。10来自西方的关键路线则起自甘肃走廊，在宁夏现代区域渡河，沿鄂尔多斯边缘经统万与榆林，最后在"君子津"——位于喇嘛湾镇以南黄河狭窄处——再次渡河。11
平城亦有货物输出——马匹、毛皮等——但几乎可以肯定此时最大宗的"出口品"是军队，他们定期出征以夺取更富饶世界的资源。太武帝在君子津建造的桥梁并非为促进商贸，而是为入侵鄂尔多斯。12
然而平城的输入品却数量庞大且种类繁多。来自北方的羊群、牛群与马队，或经过参合坡驱赶南下，或沿白道关口而下。439年征服北凉后，随着携带玻璃杯与希腊化风格银盘的僧侣、乐师及商人经甘肃走廊北上榆林抵达平城，一股文化影响的浪潮——既有令人愉悦的器物，也有号称智慧的人物——从新占领的西部地域涌入。这些影响持续了一两代人，体现在佛教的传播与早期云冈石窟浓厚的中亚风格中。13来自南方的华夏影响当然更早便已开始：自征服黄河流域平原起，崔宏等读书人便与数量更为庞大的农民、以及那些为拓跋政权建造纪念碑的工匠们一起被迁往平城。随着越来越多制成品、人员、时尚与思想从华夏世界北传，这种影响在后世变得愈发显着。
平城是一个粗粝的国际化都市，街道上充斥着形形色色的人群。14行走其间——或徒步或骑马——的会有身着短袄并将裤腿扎入皮靴的鲜卑士兵；蓄须隆鼻的粟特商人；以及身着士人长袍的汉人。15这里必定如同巴别塔般语言混杂：人们说着汉语与东伊朗语，可汗的鲜卑语以及其他内亚语言。在男性间自由穿行的女性们"连车列骑充盈街衢，绮罗缤纷充溢官署，为子求官为夫诉屈"。16这是一个持续流动的世界。高塔作为宣告场所拔地而起，城墙则用来圈围人口。五十年后，佛塔直插云霄，宣扬着曾祖父辈仅略知皮毛的宗教。不同族群穿行其间，他们被要求在此扮演不同角色，通过成文法与习惯法确立各自的社会地位。当局希望维持这种状态。但不同阶层与职业的人群相互混杂，甚至通婚。随着一道道禁止此类行为的法令颁布，当局也不断自证其政令的失效。17
最早被强制迁移至此的群体中，包含真正的游牧民——涉珪统治初十年间俘获的高车，他们被强制安置在平城与北方戈壁沙漠之间的草原地带；由于已将本部牧民转为士兵，涉珪需要征召草原游牧民来填补帝国这一角色。18至少大部分这类群体被允许自治并继续畜牧，仅需每年向可汗纳贡。19加入这些内亚人口的还有慕容骑兵及其家属，以及高句丽与其他"杂夷"——他们此前在燕政权下迁入平原地区，后于398年被迫北迁以效忠新的拓跋统治者。20
在被迫迁徙的十万人口中，各族群皆有分布，但无论从数量还是其他方面考虑，汉人群体将在涉珪营造于大同盆地的世界——乃至整个帝国版图内——扮演特别重要的角色。最早自愿参与拓跋事业的汉人是四世纪初西晋崩溃时前来的冒险者。前文提及的卫操即属此类——这位勇武的将领为躲避八王之乱的动荡，携亲族寻求拓跋庇护，在猗·死后创作系列歌谣，颂扬猗·及其弟猗卢支持司马氏对抗刘渊的事迹。同时期的富商莫含久居桑干河下游，常北上与拓跋贸易，当太原刺史将大同盆地让渡于拓跋后便定居于此。21此二人皆受代国首位国王猗卢器重，但均在其死后逃离。
然而几代人后，到道武帝时期，移民已别无选择。如第三章所述，强制迁徙在秦汉时期亦曾实施，包括向边疆的迁徙。但核心与边缘的定位已然改变：中原帝国实施迁徙是为巩固其北疆以防御——至少汉人眼中的——蛮夷世界，而涉珪将数万名"新民"迁入其王畿，旨在建立新东亚秩序的核心。短短数十年间，该区域人口将增长至百万或更多。22
尽管"新民"种类多样——高车亦属此列——但大多数是汉人，且多数被安置在大同盆地耕作，尤以桑干河沿岸更肥沃的土地为甚。这些人口经登记后，被授予土地（计口授田）与耕牛。23某种意义上这是卫公屯田制的扩展，此举显着增加了王畿内的谷物种植。涉珪特别重视的读书人——如崔宏——则被分派进行人口登记与赋税征收。24尽管未必如某些史家所言完全折服于崔氏阐释的汉文典籍之威力，涉珪仍任命其为新设立的黄门侍郎机构主管。
然而该机构的权力非常有限。这属于"外朝"。实权掌握在"内朝"以及以压倒性多数具有内亚血统的王公将领手中。（内朝将在下文详述。）但崔宏的尚书台确是涉珪希望发展制度以管控并征收数百万户现已归属拓跋统治的农民的赋税平台。25那些被迁入可汗直辖领地的人口被编入"八部"，其首领"劝课农桑"——这必然包含实地巡查村落——并向他们征收赋税。26尽管关于平城村落的直接证据稀少，但通过现代学者侯旭东在邻近区域的研究，我们可以推断桑干河下游应有密集的村落网络，部分可能筑有低矮的陶土墙。村内分散的农舍面积狭小（100-150平方英尺），由陶土与木柱建造，茅草覆顶，较富裕者或使用瓦片。27附属建筑如厕所、畜栏与水井应毗邻而建。
这些土地农牧兼宜。北魏最初数十年间，畜牧与狩猎仍占主导地位，对军队补给至关重要。28但随着持续的人口迁徙，农耕社群日益增多，农业逐渐主导代国经济。29游牧者自身似乎也越来越多转向农业，如太武帝时期诏令定居群体中的富裕者需与贫困族人共享耕牛所示。30在特别引人注目的案例中，某位太武帝时期待决的代国军人曾告诫其弟："桑干以北土质贫瘠。[但]汝可居河南耕作良田。"31盆地农业的迅猛发展自然产生相应影响。四世纪时大同盆地周边丘陵遍布榆树等茂密林地，这些林木对拓跋似具宗教意义。至五世纪末，因建筑用材砍伐，山岭已成童山。随着人口增长，弱势群体被迫在裸露山坡谋生，致使山体丧失原有蓄水功能，进而加剧下游盆地农民的耕作困境。32
至于实体制造与建筑工程，工匠为中原帝国生产的物品曾是其实力的重要基础，也是其数个世纪以来影响并操控周边族群的能力来源。涉珪直接掌控此类生产者的重要性无论如何强调都不为过。这对慕容部同样重要——398年，此前受燕管辖的"百工伎巧"的36个署也被迁往大同盆地。33尽管这些工匠群体显然受君主控制且可转移，其内部组织情况却鲜为人知。但可以推测他们是自我延续的：子承父业于群体内部，技艺代代相传。34这些群体也是约半年后平城建设的必要条件。由于直接掌控工匠群体且普遍实行自上而下的物资分配，货币需求甚微——北魏君主直至迁都洛阳前都未铸造钱币。35
专业化劳动力因此处于直接管控之下（至少大部分在官营作坊中），而"计口授田"的农民则耕作并向王畿八部管理者缴纳粮食税。北魏早期，这些人口——虽偶被征调从事后勤或筑路——并非中央军队组成部分。"虽无征戍之劳，却有耕织之勤，以资军国之用。"36而国家机器的主体正是军队。37
在北魏早期的复杂行政体系中，正规军服役者构成独特人群。这个"准国民"群体享有一系列共同特权，包括参与战利品分配。38他们对可汗的主要义务是可靠履行军事征役。退出服役需获可汗特别许可。39以此方式服役的个人与家族——大多具有内亚血统并与拓跋长期结盟，如贺兰部——通过登记于特殊军籍确定身份（参见第十一章）。务农的"新民"至少大部分居住于村落，而专业军事人口至少大部分显然居于城市——或处平城本城，或驻低地要塞。南朝史籍《南齐书》（编撰于六世纪初）提及北魏设有音译为"九豆和（中古音*kyuw-tuw-hwa）"的官职，负责管理"宫城三里内民户籍不属诸军戍者"（宫城3里[约1英里]范围内未隶属各军营戍所之民户），这当然表明城区中心一英里范围内多数人口属军籍。40文本线索暗示他们可能分属城中六个特定里坊。41
