《明会典》性质考辩——“官修典制史书”“行政法典”说驳正

如何看待《明会典》的性质?学界长期存在争议,代表性观点有"官修典制史书"说、"行政法典"说,两说各讲各话,并行流传。然考察《明会典》的纂修宗旨、典文构成、《会典》事例的性质和功能、《明会典》是否行用等问题表明:"增修《诸司职掌》,成一代画一经常之典"是《明会典》编纂的动因;正德《会典》典、例分述,典文以整合祖宗成法有效条款为核心内容,事例由精心删定的现行事例和仍适合行用、参用的先年事例构成;万历《会典》典、例一体合编,所有条款都提升为"经久常行之法"。《明会典》全面规范国家的各项基本制度,具有最高法律效力,被明人称为"大经大法",其颁行后被广泛行用。"官修典制史书"说混淆了法典与史书编纂目的、方法的不同,忽视了《明会典》的法律效力和长期行用的史实,"行政法典"说忽略了《大明律》458条列入《明会典》的史实,两说均难成立。

Research on the Nature of Ming Hui Dian——Refuting Viewpoints of "Official Historical Records" and "Administrative Code"

What is the nature of Ming Hui Dian?There have been controversies in academic circles for a long time.Two representative viewpoints are "official historical records" and "administrative code".However,the investigation of the compilation principal aim and composition of Ming Hui Dian,the nature and function of cases of Hui Dian,and whether Ming Hui Dian was used or not shows that the motivation for its compilation is to supplement and revise Zhu Si Zhi Zhang,and make a systematic high-level law code in the Ming Dynasty.Zhengde ’s Hui Dian describes Dian and cases separately.The core content of Dian is to integrate the effective clauses of the laws of the ancestors.Cases are composed of current valid cases that are carefully modified and determined and previous cases that are still suitable for use.Wanli’s Hui Dian describes Dian and cases together,and all clauses are upgraded to "laws used for a long time".Ming Hui Dian comprehensively regulates the country ’s basic systems and has the highest legal effect.It is called "Dajing Dafa"(the fundamental law) in Ming Dynasty and has been widely used after its issue for enforcement.The viewpoint of "official historical records" confuses the differences in the compilation purpose and method of code and historical records.It ignores the legal effect of Ming Hui Dian and the historical facts that Ming Hui Dian has been used for a long time.The viewpoint of "administrative code" ignores the historical facts that article 458 of Da Ming Lv is included in Ming Hui Dian.Both viewpoints are difficult to hold.