明代王府建筑制度是以往的建筑史研究中相对而言被忽略的一环，但对于明代建筑史来说意义重大。这主要体现在王府建筑在明代建筑群等级制度中的地位以及王府建筑带来的影响两方面。围绕这两方面，本文展开了以下诸方面的研究。 在梳理明代王府营造相关背景的基础上，本文首先通过实例与制度的研究，纵观了整个明代的王府营造，对洪武朝（1368～1398年）和弘治朝（1488～1505年）两次制度颁布的史实进行了考证与梳理，并对各个时期王府的时代和地域差别进行了总体的考察。因明代王府的地面建筑多已不存，对实例的研究工作主要集中在地方城市史志所记载的王府建筑及其在城市肌理中的基址规模调查等方面。在制度记载所提供的有限资料的基础上，通过实例的分析，本文认为明代的王府建筑形制，存在明初十王与此后诸王的悬殊差别，并且认为制度的下降，在永乐宣德朝（1403～1435年）定型；弘治朝的制度是在成化朝（1465～1487年）制度基础上重新规范化的结果，从实例中体现的规模来看，不及洪武十王，但高于永乐宣德朝的规制；明代后期封王数量的减少，且多沿用前代旧基，王府营造并无制度上的创制。兴王府是明代王府建筑的一个特殊案例，结合其留存的丰富图像史料和文字记载，本文对其在嘉靖朝（1522～1566年）改建的史实进行了研究，并对其进行了形象上的复原。而上述这些王府的地域与时代差别，及兴王府改建的特殊案例，无不体现着王府建筑形制与其政治背景的差异与变动之间的紧密关联。 建筑群实例本身虽存在着显著的差别，但总体来说以基址规模、正殿制度等方式体现着其所有者的身份等级。王府建造在明代建筑群等级制度中仅次于天子一等，本文分析了洪武初的天子宫殿、亲王府及府衙基址规模之间的数字关系，讨论明初可能存在的建筑群基址规模等级的划定方式；结合明代建筑群实例，对明代建筑等级制度下建筑群的基址规模、正殿院落及正殿制度进行了系统的梳理。在这一等级系统中，明代东亚朝贡体系下，朝鲜的景福宫建筑群占据当时时局下的特定位置。 明代亲王府以其巨大规模占据了地方城市中的大片土地，且往往居于城内的显赫位置，因此王府的建设是地方城市建设史中的重要事件。本文认为王府的建造给地方城市带来了一个“礼仪中心”。王府不仅对城市的形态与结构两方面发生影响，且这种影响往往超越其存在的时间，甚至在一定程度上决定了城市空间的发展方向。
In the history of Ming Dynasty’s architecture, the prince’s palace was significant in its high status and influence to the feudatory cities, but in former research, less attention had been given to it. Focusing on these two aspects, this dissertation carried out researches as below. To study the construction of the princes’ palace in the whole Ming dynasty, researches on the regulation recorded in documentary and each existed case were necessary. Analysis on two pieces of recordation about the construction of prince’s palace in Hongwu Reign (1368~1398) and Hongzhi Reign (1488~1505) showed the retrenching tendency over time, while the case studies illuminated that moreover, the constructing standard differed along with region and individual status. The records of chorography and the remains in the cities’ context partly made up the absence of physical relics. In the early years of Hongwu Reign, the palaces of ten princes have the largest scope and the highest hierarchy in the whole Ming dynasty. The retrenching began in Yongle Reign (1403~1424), and was ascertained in Xuande Reign (1426~1435). The construction regulation of 8th year of Hongzhi, was a standardization basing on the cases in the former Chenghua Reign (1465~1487) and Hongzhi Reign (1488~1505), which have the higher hierarchy than those in Yongle and Xuande Reign, while lower than the Hongwu Reign. After Hongzhi Reign, the Ming Dynasty went to its terminal, when the number of princes’ palace constructed reduced and the old foundations of the princes disenthroned were often adopted. With abundant pictorial and literary documents remained, the palace of King Xing, whose son was the latter Emperor Jiajing, was a special case in Ming dynasty, which was reconstructed in Jiajing Reign (1522~1566) in the movement of Yili(discussing on the rites). A visual appearance of the prince’s palace in the middle age of Ming dynasty was given through the research of King Xing’s palace. Almost all the fact about the construction of Prince’s palace concluded above presented its high sensitivity to the politics of Ming dynasty. In spite of the great difference between each case, some characters of building complexes corresponded with its status faithfully, such as the scope of foundation, the standard of main hall area. In the hierarchy system of architecture in Ming dynasty, the prince’s palace ranks second after the Forbidden City of the emperor. The data of the dimensions of foundation in 3 levels, including the Forbidden City, the prince’s palace and the office of county government (Fuya), were perfectly in proportion regarding to their status hierarchy, which implied a potential standard of foundation admeasurement in the early Ming hierarchy system. The data of cases on the foundation, the pattern of main hall area and the main hall, systematized the research on the hierarchy of building complexes in Ming dynasty. In this system, Gyeongbokgung Palace in Korea held its specific status in the 14Century east Asia dominated by the Confucianism civilization. Occupying a large scope of foundation, located in the heartland area, the princes’ palace was constructed in the local cities almost all over the country, to whom it was an unassailable important event. A new center of rites was imposed on the feudatory city, which changed the city formally and structurally. Generally, these changes exceeded the dynastic extent, and to a certain degree, determined the future growth of the city space.
