|
Abstract The ruling system of Zhou (周) and that of Qin (秦) should be regarded as two paradigms throughout the evolving history of Chinese political institutionalization. Generally speaking， the dynasties after Qin and Han (汉) mainly followed the ruling system of Qin. Historians， therefore， have proposed that all imperial dynasties after Qin follow the ruling system of Qin. Yet the Han dynasty， while inheriting the ruling system of Qin， also absorbed some elements from the ruling system of Zhou by the reviving and renewing movement， and thus formed a particular model of ruling system that combined both the ruling system of Zhou and that of Qin， both Confucianism and Legalism. Since the two Han Dynasties， China’s imperial power has been checked and balanced by multiple factors， such as the Tao of Heaven， ancestral admonitions， ritual system， aristocracy， bureaucracy， patriarchal gentry power， and civil upheaval. In most cases， it did not evolve into absolute autocracy， which were the reasons for the regenerative capacity of Han system and why it was difficult to disintegrate. However， these factors lacked legal norms and new social concepts， and their checks and balances on imperial power were limited. The “standard portrait” of the emperors of the mid and late eras was： one hand held high Confucian classics， declaring to the world with “benevolent governance” and “ruling with virtue”； the other hand clung to the sword of Legalism to threaten and punish the subjects. This ruling system of Han， which could be characterized as “Zhou as its exterior and Qin as its interior” or “Confucianism as the skin and Legalism as the bone”， maintained for nearly two thousand years. In this sense， the political institutionalization of the middle and late ancient history should be summarized as all imperial dynasties after Han followed the ruling-system of Han.
|
|
Received: 18 March 2022
|
|
|
|
2022, Vol. 61 
