“冯铨窃毁《明熹宗实录》说”质疑

The Textual Research on the Story of “Feng Quan Stole and Burned Ming Xizong Shilu”

今传《明熹宗实录》缺少天启四年及七年六月部分。清代旧传,此为顺治初年阁臣冯铨所窃毁,以抹消不利于己的证据。学者多采信此说并以此说成立的客观条件为重点,进一步辨析对冯铨不利的事实,必与天启时期依附魏忠贤有关。据《明熹宗实录》现存其他对冯不利的内容,可知被毁信息应更直白地反映冯铨附魏。《国榷》作者谈迁不可能得见《熹宗实录》全本,故不能由《国榷》所载反推《熹宗实录》的阙文。据阙文对应时段内的重要言论、事件,可知天启四年存在对冯不利的事实,但当时与此后并无直接指斥冯氏此间行为的奏疏或记载,而七年六月,连不利事实亦不存在。所以,现存《明熹宗实录》阙文,应无使窃毁动机成立的文字内容,冯铨窃毁说不仅来源可疑,更没有可靠的客观成立条件。

The 4th year and June of the 7th year of Tianqi are missing in the current Ming Xizong Shilu. There is a saying that cabinet minister Feng Quan stole and destroyed it, to erase the evidence against him. Scholars generally accept this statement. Focusing on the objective conditions for the establishment of this theory, it can be further discriminated. The fact to Feng Quan ’s disadvantage must be related to Wei Zhongxian during Tianqi. According to other negative information about Feng in Shilu, it can be seen that the destroyed information should more directly reflect Feng Quan’s attachment to Wei. Tan Qian, the author of Guo Que, could not have access to the whole transcript of Xizong Shilu, so the full text of Xizong Shilu could not be inferred from Guo Que. According to the important remarks and events in the corresponding period, it can be seen that there were negative facts against Feng in the 4th year of Tianqi, but there was no report or record directly criticizing Feng’s behavior during that period at that time and thereafter, and even the negative facts did not exist in June of the 7th year. Therefore, there should be no text content to establish the motive of theft. The story of theft not only has questionable sources, but also has no reliable objective conditions for its establishment.