QA：在中华帝国的整个历史中，有没有类似宪法的东西来规定皇帝的权力？换句话说，有皇帝不能违反的规则、习俗或法律吗？
正文翻译
The emperor did not know everything and did not have the energy to manage everything. He had to rely on ministers to govern the empire.
If the ministers deceive their superiors and hide the truth from their subordinates, the emperor can actually be easily deceived.
Except for the founding emperor who can control the overall situation, subsequent emperors will be restricted by the scholar-official class. As long as the emperor shows a little weak character, the power will immediately fall into the hands of the ministers.
皇帝并非无所不知，也没有精力管理一切。他必须依靠大臣来治理帝国。
如果大臣欺上瞒下，皇帝其实很容易被蒙蔽。
除了开国皇帝能够掌控全局，后续的皇帝都会受到士大夫阶层的限制。只要皇帝表现出一点软弱的性格，权力就会立刻落入大臣手中。
Was there in the Chinese Empire throughout its history something resembling a constitution that defined the powers of the emperor? In other words, were there rules, customs, or laws that the emperor could not transgress?
在中华帝国的整个历史中，有没有类似宪法的东西来规定皇帝的权力？换句话说，有皇帝不能违反的规则、习俗或法律吗？
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
在中华帝国的整个历史中，有没有类似宪法的东西来规定皇帝的权力？换句话说，有皇帝不能违反的规则、习俗或法律吗？
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
CaiLei
It has never been the scholar-officials who have been dependent on imperial power, but rather the imperial power that has been dependent on the scholar-officials.
Many emperors never left the Forbidden City since childhood, and were just canaries raised in a cage made of gold. The scholar-officials served as the emperor's teachers and brainwashed the emperor since childhood.
从来不是士大夫依赖皇权，而是皇权依赖士大夫。
许多皇帝从小就没有离开过紫禁城，只是被养在金笼子里的金丝雀。士大夫们作为皇帝的老师，从小就给皇帝洗脑。
It has never been the scholar-officials who have been dependent on imperial power, but rather the imperial power that has been dependent on the scholar-officials.
Many emperors never left the Forbidden City since childhood, and were just canaries raised in a cage made of gold. The scholar-officials served as the emperor's teachers and brainwashed the emperor since childhood.
从来不是士大夫依赖皇权，而是皇权依赖士大夫。
许多皇帝从小就没有离开过紫禁城，只是被养在金笼子里的金丝雀。士大夫们作为皇帝的老师，从小就给皇帝洗脑。
The emperor did not know everything and did not have the energy to manage everything. He had to rely on ministers to govern the empire.
If the ministers deceive their superiors and hide the truth from their subordinates, the emperor can actually be easily deceived.
Except for the founding emperor who can control the overall situation, subsequent emperors will be restricted by the scholar-official class. As long as the emperor shows a little weak character, the power will immediately fall into the hands of the ministers.
皇帝并非无所不知，也没有精力管理一切。他必须依靠大臣来治理帝国。
如果大臣欺上瞒下，皇帝其实很容易被蒙蔽。
除了开国皇帝能够掌控全局，后续的皇帝都会受到士大夫阶层的限制。只要皇帝表现出一点软弱的性格，权力就会立刻落入大臣手中。
There are also systems above the imperial power, including the ancestral system formed by the founding emperor and successive emperors.
According to the clear provisions of these systems, the emperor cannot ignore the system and do whatever he wants.
在皇权之上还有制度，包括开国皇帝和历代皇帝形成的祖制。
根据这些制度的明确规定，皇帝不能无视制度为所欲为。
According to the clear provisions of these systems, the emperor cannot ignore the system and do whatever he wants.
在皇权之上还有制度，包括开国皇帝和历代皇帝形成的祖制。
根据这些制度的明确规定，皇帝不能无视制度为所欲为。
So when the emperor and the ministers can abide by the system, the emperor is constrained by the ministers according to the system.
At this time, everyone obeys the system.
因此，当皇帝和大臣都能遵守制度时，皇帝就会按照制度被大臣约束。
这时，所有人都服从制度。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
At this time, everyone obeys the system.
因此，当皇帝和大臣都能遵守制度时，皇帝就会按照制度被大臣约束。
这时，所有人都服从制度。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
————
Feng Lu
In Chinese history, there were elements that bore some resemblance to a constitution in terms of defining imperial powers to a certain extent.
From an institutional perspective, traditional concepts and ancestral instructions played a role in constraining the emperor's power.
For example, in the Ming Dynasty, there was the "Ancestral Instructions of the Ming Dynasty." It stipulated many principles and norms regarding imperial affairs, and the emperor was not supposed to violate them easily.
In terms of administrative operations, the bureaucratic system also had its own rules.
For example, in the Three - Departments and Six - Ministries System, the Central Secretariat was responsible for decision - making, the Chancellery examined imperial edicts, and the Department of State Affairs executed administrative orders. If the emperor's edicts did not conform to established laws, ritual systems, or were strongly opposed by ministers, they might not be implemented smoothly.
From a ideological and cultural point of view, the Confucian concept of "benevolent governance" also restricted the emperor's power.
If the emperor's behavior was considered to have violated the principle of "benevolence," ministers could remonstrate based on Confucian classics.
For example, Emperor Taizong of Tang, Li Shimin, revised some of his decisions because of the remonstrance he received.
However, these constraints did not define the limits of power as clearly and systematically as a modern - day constitution.
Moreover, under the feudal autocratic system, the emperor generally had the highest and almost unrestricted power. In the later period of a dynasty or when there was an autocratic monarch, these constraints were often broken.
在中国历史上，确实存在一些在某种程度上定义皇权的元素，这些元素与宪法有相似之处。
从制度角度来看，传统观念和祖训对皇帝的权力起到了一定的约束作用。
例如，在明朝，有明朝祖训。它规定了许多关于皇权的原则和规范，皇帝不应轻易违反。
在行政运作方面，官僚体系也有自己的规则。
例如，在三省六部制中，中书省负责决策，门下省审查诏令，尚书省执行行政命令。如果皇帝的诏令不符合既定法律、礼制，或遭到大臣的强烈反对，可能无法顺利实施。
从思想和文化的角度来看，儒家的“仁政”理念也限制了皇帝的权力。
如果皇帝的行为被认为违反了“仁”的原则，大臣们可以根据儒家经典进行谏言。
例如，唐太宗李世民因接受谏言而修改了一些决定。
然而，这些约束并没有像现代宪法那样清晰和系统地定义权力的界限。
此外，在封建专制制度下，皇帝通常拥有最高且几乎不受限制的权力。在王朝后期或出现专制君主时，这些约束往往会被打破。
Feng Lu
In Chinese history, there were elements that bore some resemblance to a constitution in terms of defining imperial powers to a certain extent.
From an institutional perspective, traditional concepts and ancestral instructions played a role in constraining the emperor's power.
For example, in the Ming Dynasty, there was the "Ancestral Instructions of the Ming Dynasty." It stipulated many principles and norms regarding imperial affairs, and the emperor was not supposed to violate them easily.
In terms of administrative operations, the bureaucratic system also had its own rules.
For example, in the Three - Departments and Six - Ministries System, the Central Secretariat was responsible for decision - making, the Chancellery examined imperial edicts, and the Department of State Affairs executed administrative orders. If the emperor's edicts did not conform to established laws, ritual systems, or were strongly opposed by ministers, they might not be implemented smoothly.
From a ideological and cultural point of view, the Confucian concept of "benevolent governance" also restricted the emperor's power.
If the emperor's behavior was considered to have violated the principle of "benevolence," ministers could remonstrate based on Confucian classics.
For example, Emperor Taizong of Tang, Li Shimin, revised some of his decisions because of the remonstrance he received.
However, these constraints did not define the limits of power as clearly and systematically as a modern - day constitution.
Moreover, under the feudal autocratic system, the emperor generally had the highest and almost unrestricted power. In the later period of a dynasty or when there was an autocratic monarch, these constraints were often broken.
在中国历史上，确实存在一些在某种程度上定义皇权的元素，这些元素与宪法有相似之处。
从制度角度来看，传统观念和祖训对皇帝的权力起到了一定的约束作用。
例如，在明朝，有明朝祖训。它规定了许多关于皇权的原则和规范，皇帝不应轻易违反。
在行政运作方面，官僚体系也有自己的规则。
例如，在三省六部制中，中书省负责决策，门下省审查诏令，尚书省执行行政命令。如果皇帝的诏令不符合既定法律、礼制，或遭到大臣的强烈反对，可能无法顺利实施。
从思想和文化的角度来看，儒家的“仁政”理念也限制了皇帝的权力。
如果皇帝的行为被认为违反了“仁”的原则，大臣们可以根据儒家经典进行谏言。
例如，唐太宗李世民因接受谏言而修改了一些决定。
然而，这些约束并没有像现代宪法那样清晰和系统地定义权力的界限。
此外，在封建专制制度下，皇帝通常拥有最高且几乎不受限制的权力。在王朝后期或出现专制君主时，这些约束往往会被打破。
——————
Freddie Chen
There was never a constitution to define or say limit the power of emperor of ancient Chinese emperor.
If we use a term which western people are familiar, it would be “divine right of kings”. However, such divine right is not from any god of any religion. It is from “sky” or “Mandate of Heaven”.
Emperor named themselves “Son of the Mandate of Heaven” by which he/she gained the power to rule the country and people with the willingness of “Mandate of Heaven”.
However, “Mandate of Heaven” is kind of limitation of power of an ancient Chinese emperor, more from a moral perspection.
If we use a modern explanation to explain “Mandate of Heaven”, it is kind of Rousseau‘s Social Contract. Mandate of Heaven is a social contract between emperor and people. People acknowledge emperor’s supreme ruling power in return emperor should do good governance and fair distibution (relatively) to give them a living.
You need to realise that in ancient China, after Qin founded the first centralized dynasty of ancient China. The power is actually shared by emperor and gentry class (before Tang Dynasty)/scholar-gentry class (from Song Dynasty). There were several time, official deposed the emperor and propped up a new one from royal familiy since that the previous one could not do proper for emperor duty. And with such excuse, you would not be regarded as a rebillion but did practice the willingness of “Mandate of Heaven” since that the previous one lost “Mandate of Heaven” by his inappropriate behavior of being an emperor. XD
If we continued with modern explanation, that means the previous emepror failed to fullfill the contract and could not represent the interests of the gentry class. So does the famous “Dynasty Circle” theory. Actually, it is a economic problem that the behind ancient management technology cannot solve the problem of land annexation which created the problem of peasant uprising since that mass of farmer lost lands. You failed to fullfill the contract of doing a relatively fair distribution and could not represent the interests of mass of all Chinese. You lost the Mandate of Heaven.
在古代中国，从未有过宪法来定义或限制皇帝的权力。
如果我们用一个西方人熟悉的术语来形容，那就是“君权神授”。然而，这种神权并非来自任何宗教的神，而是来自“天”或“天命”。
皇帝自称为“天子”，通过“天命”获得统治国家和人民的权力。
然而，“天命”在某种程度上是对古代中国皇帝权力的限制，更多是从道德角度出发的。
如果我们用现代的解释来说明“天命”，它类似于卢梭的“社会契约”。天命是皇帝与人民之间的社会契约。人民承认皇帝的至高统治权，而皇帝则应进行良好的治理和相对公平的分配，以确保人民的生活。
你需要意识到，在古代中国，自秦朝建立第一个中央集权王朝后，权力实际上是由皇帝和士族阶层（唐朝以前）/士大夫阶层（宋朝以后）共享的。
历史上曾多次出现官员废黜皇帝并从皇室中另立新君的情况，原因是前任皇帝未能履行皇帝的职责。
以这样的借口行事，你不会被视为叛乱，而是实践了“天命”的意愿，因为前任皇帝因不当行为失去了“天命”。
如果我们继续用现代的解释，这意味着前任皇帝未能履行契约，无法代表士族阶层的利益。
著名的“王朝循环”理论也是如此。实际上，这是一个经济问题，古代管理技术无法解决土地兼并问题，导致大量农民失去土地，从而引发农民起义。
你未能履行相对公平分配的契约，也无法代表全体中国人民的利益。你失去了“天命”。
Freddie Chen
There was never a constitution to define or say limit the power of emperor of ancient Chinese emperor.
If we use a term which western people are familiar, it would be “divine right of kings”. However, such divine right is not from any god of any religion. It is from “sky” or “Mandate of Heaven”.
Emperor named themselves “Son of the Mandate of Heaven” by which he/she gained the power to rule the country and people with the willingness of “Mandate of Heaven”.
However, “Mandate of Heaven” is kind of limitation of power of an ancient Chinese emperor, more from a moral perspection.
If we use a modern explanation to explain “Mandate of Heaven”, it is kind of Rousseau‘s Social Contract. Mandate of Heaven is a social contract between emperor and people. People acknowledge emperor’s supreme ruling power in return emperor should do good governance and fair distibution (relatively) to give them a living.
You need to realise that in ancient China, after Qin founded the first centralized dynasty of ancient China. The power is actually shared by emperor and gentry class (before Tang Dynasty)/scholar-gentry class (from Song Dynasty). There were several time, official deposed the emperor and propped up a new one from royal familiy since that the previous one could not do proper for emperor duty. And with such excuse, you would not be regarded as a rebillion but did practice the willingness of “Mandate of Heaven” since that the previous one lost “Mandate of Heaven” by his inappropriate behavior of being an emperor. XD
If we continued with modern explanation, that means the previous emepror failed to fullfill the contract and could not represent the interests of the gentry class. So does the famous “Dynasty Circle” theory. Actually, it is a economic problem that the behind ancient management technology cannot solve the problem of land annexation which created the problem of peasant uprising since that mass of farmer lost lands. You failed to fullfill the contract of doing a relatively fair distribution and could not represent the interests of mass of all Chinese. You lost the Mandate of Heaven.
在古代中国，从未有过宪法来定义或限制皇帝的权力。
如果我们用一个西方人熟悉的术语来形容，那就是“君权神授”。然而，这种神权并非来自任何宗教的神，而是来自“天”或“天命”。
皇帝自称为“天子”，通过“天命”获得统治国家和人民的权力。
然而，“天命”在某种程度上是对古代中国皇帝权力的限制，更多是从道德角度出发的。
如果我们用现代的解释来说明“天命”，它类似于卢梭的“社会契约”。天命是皇帝与人民之间的社会契约。人民承认皇帝的至高统治权，而皇帝则应进行良好的治理和相对公平的分配，以确保人民的生活。
你需要意识到，在古代中国，自秦朝建立第一个中央集权王朝后，权力实际上是由皇帝和士族阶层（唐朝以前）/士大夫阶层（宋朝以后）共享的。
历史上曾多次出现官员废黜皇帝并从皇室中另立新君的情况，原因是前任皇帝未能履行皇帝的职责。
以这样的借口行事，你不会被视为叛乱，而是实践了“天命”的意愿，因为前任皇帝因不当行为失去了“天命”。
如果我们继续用现代的解释，这意味着前任皇帝未能履行契约，无法代表士族阶层的利益。
著名的“王朝循环”理论也是如此。实际上，这是一个经济问题，古代管理技术无法解决土地兼并问题，导致大量农民失去土地，从而引发农民起义。
你未能履行相对公平分配的契约，也无法代表全体中国人民的利益。你失去了“天命”。
——————
Thai Nguyen Gia
Technically speaking, there’s no concrete constitution or laws that a lowly person can point to that as basic rights to defend himself. Technically. Nothing like US constitution, French Constitution etc…
And if you want to find a set of laws and customs that define emperor’s power, also nothing.
Not because they dont have, but because they dont accept such things having power over such august personae like an Emperor. The emperors will strive for absolute power, and the court officials (and local factions) will strive to limit emperor’s power.
The emperors will strive for Qin Shi Huang’s limit, aka the ability to burn down books of all (opposing) scholars, define a single authority figure with a single set of measurement for the empire. They will totally ignore that Qin dynasty last only TWO generation and crashing down in total revolts.
The court officials will strive for Emperor sitting in the royal palace paying no attention to court works (which quite a few Emperors been treated that way). On paper, Song dynasty is the peak, with Emperor saying “I will rule aside with civil officials”, with civil officials being court officials representing local factions. There are other dynasties having that kind of state, but such motto saying straight out from Emperor’s lip can only come in Song.
There were a lot of articles in Confucianism books and Taoism scrolls define how emperors should act, but, again, as I said, Emperors really hate ancient people defining their’s actions that way. And other than those scrolls, court officials can also try to limit emperor’s power by precedents, by ancestors’ behaviours.
I dont get the intent of this question by the way. It’s not as if western emperors would pay any attention to such book, such laws, should they exist in the west. So what’s the point?
从技术上讲，古代中国并没有具体的宪法或法律，可以让一个普通人作为基本权利来为自己辩护。技术上来说，没有像美国宪法、法国宪法等类似的东西。
如果你想找到一套定义皇帝权力的法律和习俗，也没有。
不是因为他们没有，而是因为他们不接受这些东西对像皇帝这样尊贵的人物具有约束力。皇帝们会追求绝对权力，而朝廷官员（和地方派系）则会努力限制皇帝的权力。
皇帝们会追求秦始皇的极限，即有能力烧毁所有（反对派）学者的书籍，定义一个单一的权威人物，并为帝国制定一套单一的度量标准。他们会完全忽视秦朝只持续了两代就在全面起义中崩溃的事实。
朝廷官员则会努力让皇帝坐在皇宫里，不关心朝政（不少皇帝就是这样被对待的）。在理论上，宋朝是巅峰，皇帝说“我将与文官共治天下”，文官作为朝廷官员代表地方派系。其他朝代也有类似的情况，但皇帝亲口说出这样的口号，只有在宋朝才能见到。
儒家经典和道教典籍中有许多文章定义了皇帝应该如何行事，但正如我所说，皇帝们非常讨厌古人以这种方式定义他们的行为。
除了这些典籍，朝廷官员还可以通过先例、祖先的行为来尝试限制皇帝的权力。
顺便说一句，我不太理解这个问题的意图。即使西方存在这样的书籍或法律，西方的皇帝们也不会在意。所以，这有什么意义呢？
Thai Nguyen Gia
Technically speaking, there’s no concrete constitution or laws that a lowly person can point to that as basic rights to defend himself. Technically. Nothing like US constitution, French Constitution etc…
And if you want to find a set of laws and customs that define emperor’s power, also nothing.
Not because they dont have, but because they dont accept such things having power over such august personae like an Emperor. The emperors will strive for absolute power, and the court officials (and local factions) will strive to limit emperor’s power.
The emperors will strive for Qin Shi Huang’s limit, aka the ability to burn down books of all (opposing) scholars, define a single authority figure with a single set of measurement for the empire. They will totally ignore that Qin dynasty last only TWO generation and crashing down in total revolts.
The court officials will strive for Emperor sitting in the royal palace paying no attention to court works (which quite a few Emperors been treated that way). On paper, Song dynasty is the peak, with Emperor saying “I will rule aside with civil officials”, with civil officials being court officials representing local factions. There are other dynasties having that kind of state, but such motto saying straight out from Emperor’s lip can only come in Song.
There were a lot of articles in Confucianism books and Taoism scrolls define how emperors should act, but, again, as I said, Emperors really hate ancient people defining their’s actions that way. And other than those scrolls, court officials can also try to limit emperor’s power by precedents, by ancestors’ behaviours.
I dont get the intent of this question by the way. It’s not as if western emperors would pay any attention to such book, such laws, should they exist in the west. So what’s the point?
从技术上讲，古代中国并没有具体的宪法或法律，可以让一个普通人作为基本权利来为自己辩护。技术上来说，没有像美国宪法、法国宪法等类似的东西。
如果你想找到一套定义皇帝权力的法律和习俗，也没有。
不是因为他们没有，而是因为他们不接受这些东西对像皇帝这样尊贵的人物具有约束力。皇帝们会追求绝对权力，而朝廷官员（和地方派系）则会努力限制皇帝的权力。
皇帝们会追求秦始皇的极限，即有能力烧毁所有（反对派）学者的书籍，定义一个单一的权威人物，并为帝国制定一套单一的度量标准。他们会完全忽视秦朝只持续了两代就在全面起义中崩溃的事实。
朝廷官员则会努力让皇帝坐在皇宫里，不关心朝政（不少皇帝就是这样被对待的）。在理论上，宋朝是巅峰，皇帝说“我将与文官共治天下”，文官作为朝廷官员代表地方派系。其他朝代也有类似的情况，但皇帝亲口说出这样的口号，只有在宋朝才能见到。
儒家经典和道教典籍中有许多文章定义了皇帝应该如何行事，但正如我所说，皇帝们非常讨厌古人以这种方式定义他们的行为。
除了这些典籍，朝廷官员还可以通过先例、祖先的行为来尝试限制皇帝的权力。
顺便说一句，我不太理解这个问题的意图。即使西方存在这样的书籍或法律，西方的皇帝们也不会在意。所以，这有什么意义呢？
——————
Phantom Chuck
There were customs, as there always were in even the most tyrannical of ancient despotisms. If people think the heaven and ancestors are against the despot because he violated immemorial custom of the realm, the despot’s life would be more difficult no matter how despotic he was. also ancient despots were mostly superstitious themselves. So they were often constrained by some of the same superstitions that govern the outlooks of their subjects. So if an emperor killed his own mother, that would be very bad juju.
But there were no constitutions in Chinese history, ever. constitution would be a contract between the ruler and the governed. The ruler would not submit to being limited by the consent of the governed.
limited by the mandate of heaven, yes. limited by the mandate of the people? No.
在古代，即使是最专制的暴政下，也存在一些习俗。如果人们认为上天和祖宗都这个反对暴君，因为他违反了王国自古以来的习俗，那么无论暴君多么专制，这个暴君的处境都会变得更加困难。此外，古代的暴君大多自己也迷信。因此，他们常常受到与臣民相同的迷信观念的约束。例如，如果一个皇帝杀了自己的母亲，那将是非常不祥的征兆。
但在中国历史上，从未有过宪法。宪法将是统治者与被统治者之间的契约。统治者不会接受被统治者的同意来限制自己的权力。
受“天命”的限制，是的。受“人民意志”的限制？不。
Phantom Chuck
There were customs, as there always were in even the most tyrannical of ancient despotisms. If people think the heaven and ancestors are against the despot because he violated immemorial custom of the realm, the despot’s life would be more difficult no matter how despotic he was. also ancient despots were mostly superstitious themselves. So they were often constrained by some of the same superstitions that govern the outlooks of their subjects. So if an emperor killed his own mother, that would be very bad juju.
But there were no constitutions in Chinese history, ever. constitution would be a contract between the ruler and the governed. The ruler would not submit to being limited by the consent of the governed.
limited by the mandate of heaven, yes. limited by the mandate of the people? No.
在古代，即使是最专制的暴政下，也存在一些习俗。如果人们认为上天和祖宗都这个反对暴君，因为他违反了王国自古以来的习俗，那么无论暴君多么专制，这个暴君的处境都会变得更加困难。此外，古代的暴君大多自己也迷信。因此，他们常常受到与臣民相同的迷信观念的约束。例如，如果一个皇帝杀了自己的母亲，那将是非常不祥的征兆。
但在中国历史上，从未有过宪法。宪法将是统治者与被统治者之间的契约。统治者不会接受被统治者的同意来限制自己的权力。
受“天命”的限制，是的。受“人民意志”的限制？不。
Norman Guberman
When one has lost the people, one's reign is in supreme peril. Likewise, losing wealthy nobles, powerful land owners and the like. Absolute power leads to absolute ruin. Successor rulers were generally well educated to the job. They would have learned this. Once Confucianism prevailed over the land, even more so
当一个人失去了人民的支持，他的统治就处于极度危险之中。同样，富有的贵族、强大的地主等失去支持也是如此。绝对的权力会导致绝对的毁灭。继任的统治者通常受过良好的教育，他们会学到这一点。一旦儒家思想在土地上盛行，这一点就更加明显了。
When one has lost the people, one's reign is in supreme peril. Likewise, losing wealthy nobles, powerful land owners and the like. Absolute power leads to absolute ruin. Successor rulers were generally well educated to the job. They would have learned this. Once Confucianism prevailed over the land, even more so
当一个人失去了人民的支持，他的统治就处于极度危险之中。同样，富有的贵族、强大的地主等失去支持也是如此。绝对的权力会导致绝对的毁灭。继任的统治者通常受过良好的教育，他们会学到这一点。一旦儒家思想在土地上盛行，这一点就更加明显了。
——————
Bryan Quach
Absolute monarchy was the rule in ancient China unless the king or emperor made an edict to change anything. Otherwise, there's a rebellion or war to change dynastic rule. Any law that's written or approved by the emperor is definite unless you have a real legitimate reason and can change the mind of the king/emperor which wasn't very easy to do especially after Emperor Qin Shi Huang.
Ancient China was from 17th century BCE - 1911 CE between the Shang and Ching dynasties.
在古代中国，绝对君主制是常态，除非国王或皇帝颁布法令改变某些事情。否则，只有通过叛乱或战争才能改变王朝统治。任何由皇帝颁布或批准的法律都是绝对的，除非你有真正合法的理由并能改变国王/皇帝的想法，而这在秦始皇之后尤其困难。
古代中国从公元前17世纪的商朝到1911年的清朝结束。
Bryan Quach
Absolute monarchy was the rule in ancient China unless the king or emperor made an edict to change anything. Otherwise, there's a rebellion or war to change dynastic rule. Any law that's written or approved by the emperor is definite unless you have a real legitimate reason and can change the mind of the king/emperor which wasn't very easy to do especially after Emperor Qin Shi Huang.
Ancient China was from 17th century BCE - 1911 CE between the Shang and Ching dynasties.
在古代中国，绝对君主制是常态，除非国王或皇帝颁布法令改变某些事情。否则，只有通过叛乱或战争才能改变王朝统治。任何由皇帝颁布或批准的法律都是绝对的，除非你有真正合法的理由并能改变国王/皇帝的想法，而这在秦始皇之后尤其困难。
古代中国从公元前17世纪的商朝到1911年的清朝结束。
——————
Huang Yi
Technically, no.
Once an emperor could keep the power under control, and if he/she was shameless enough, nothing could hurt or limit the emperor.
That’s why we say that dictatorship is not a good system.
However, in a dynasty, keeping the power is not easy. The emperor had to make people follow him/her, or the emperor was just a person.
In Chinese dynasties, the emperor was always one of the most dangerous jobs, many emperors were murdered or became the puppet ruler. He had to follow many rules or customs, some of them were made by the culture, and some of them were made by their ancestors, especially who founded the dynasty.
从技术上讲，没有。
一旦皇帝能够控制权力，并且如果他/她足够无耻，没有什么能伤害或限制皇帝。
这就是为什么我们说独裁制度不是一个好的制度。
然而，在一个王朝中，保持权力并不容易。皇帝必须让人们追随他/她，否则皇帝就只是一个普通人。
在中国王朝中，皇帝一直是最危险的职业之一，许多皇帝被谋杀或成为傀儡统治者。他必须遵循许多规则或习俗，其中一些是由文化形成的，另一些则是由他们的祖先，尤其是开国皇帝制定的。
Huang Yi
Technically, no.
Once an emperor could keep the power under control, and if he/she was shameless enough, nothing could hurt or limit the emperor.
That’s why we say that dictatorship is not a good system.
However, in a dynasty, keeping the power is not easy. The emperor had to make people follow him/her, or the emperor was just a person.
In Chinese dynasties, the emperor was always one of the most dangerous jobs, many emperors were murdered or became the puppet ruler. He had to follow many rules or customs, some of them were made by the culture, and some of them were made by their ancestors, especially who founded the dynasty.
从技术上讲，没有。
一旦皇帝能够控制权力，并且如果他/她足够无耻，没有什么能伤害或限制皇帝。
这就是为什么我们说独裁制度不是一个好的制度。
然而，在一个王朝中，保持权力并不容易。皇帝必须让人们追随他/她，否则皇帝就只是一个普通人。
在中国王朝中，皇帝一直是最危险的职业之一，许多皇帝被谋杀或成为傀儡统治者。他必须遵循许多规则或习俗，其中一些是由文化形成的，另一些则是由他们的祖先，尤其是开国皇帝制定的。
评论翻译
很赞 28
收藏