《九講中國古代社會(huì)流動(dòng)的爭論》由會(huì)員分享，可在線閱讀，更多相關(guān)《九講中國古代社會(huì)流動(dòng)的爭論（13頁珍藏版）》請(qǐng)?jiān)谘b配圖網(wǎng)上搜索。

1、10/17/20211第九講第九講中國古代社會(huì)流動(dòng)性的爭論中國古代社會(huì)流動(dòng)性的爭論元代進(jìn)士題名碑10/17/20212第九講科舉制、士大夫與宋代社會(huì)一、科舉制：一個(gè)爭論中的問題一、科舉制：一個(gè)爭論中的問題艾爾曼（艾爾曼（Benjamin ElmanBenjamin Elman）: : A A Cultural History of Civil Cultural History of Civil Examinations in Late Imperial Examinations in Late Imperial China China （20002000）何炳棣：何炳棣：讀史閱世六十年讀史閱世

2、六十年（20052005）社會(huì)流動(dòng)性（社會(huì)流動(dòng)性（social mobilitysocial mobility）10/17/20213第九講科舉制、士大夫與宋代社會(huì)二、爭論的由來（二、爭論的由來（1947194719621962）E. A. Kracke (E. A. Kracke (柯睿格柯睿格), “Family versus Merit in Chinese ), “Family versus Merit in Chinese Civil Examinations under the Empire” (1947)Civil Examinations under the Empire” (

3、1947)紹興十八年同年小錄紹興十八年同年小錄（11481148）: 330;157/279;56.3%: 330;157/279;56.3%寶寶祐祐四年登科錄四年登科錄（12561256）: 601;331/572;57.9%: 601;331/572;57.9%10/17/20214第九講科舉制、士大夫與宋代社會(huì)紹興十八年同年小錄紹興十八年同年小錄: : 第一甲第一人：王佐，字宣子，小名千里，小字驥兒。年二十。九月初一日生。第一甲第一人：王佐，字宣子，小名千里，小字驥兒。年二十。九月初一日生。外氏葉具慶下第五十八。兄弟五人。一舉。娶髙氏。曽祖仁，故，不仕。祖忠，外氏葉具慶下第五十八。兄弟五

4、人。一舉。娶髙氏。曽祖仁，故，不仕。祖忠，故，不仕。父俊彥，見任左廸功郎、鎮(zhèn)江府教授。本貫紹興府山隂縣禹故，不仕。父俊彥，見任左廸功郎、鎮(zhèn)江府教授。本貫紹興府山隂縣禹鄉(xiāng)廣陵鄉(xiāng)廣陵里父為戶。里父為戶。 第二人：董徳元，字體仁，小名丙哥，小字長夀。年五十三。十月初五日生。第二人：董徳元，字體仁，小名丙哥，小字長夀。年五十三。十月初五日生。外氏曾永感下第七十七。兄弟二人。六舉。娶曽氏。曽祖倚，故，都官員外郎，外氏曾永感下第七十七。兄弟二人。六舉。娶曽氏。曽祖倚，故，都官員外郎，累至太子太保。祖蒙休，故，延賞都官，贈(zèng)太子太傅。父奨，累贈(zèng)少卿。本貫吉累至太子太保。祖蒙休，故，延賞都官，贈(zèng)太子太傅。父奨，

5、累贈(zèng)少卿。本貫吉州永豐縣雲(yún)葢鄉(xiāng)善和里曽祖為戶。州永豐縣雲(yún)葢鄉(xiāng)善和里曽祖為戶。 第三人：陳孺，字漢卿，小名叔禎，小字石老。年三十一。十一月初十日生。第三人：陳孺，字漢卿，小名叔禎，小字石老。年三十一。十一月初十日生。外氏湯具慶下第四十。兄弟二人。一舉。娶饒氏，曽祖徳明，故，不仕。祖世京，外氏湯具慶下第四十。兄弟二人。一舉。娶饒氏，曽祖徳明，故，不仕。祖世京，故，不仕。父策，未仕，本貫撫州臨川縣西團(tuán)鄉(xiāng)文公坊父為戶。故，不仕。父策，未仕，本貫撫州臨川縣西團(tuán)鄉(xiāng)文公坊父為戶。10/17/20215第九講科舉制、士大夫與宋代社會(huì)“We have seen then, that a majority of

6、the men passing examinations, on the evidence of 1148 and 1256, came from non-official families. We have seen also that the examinations probably supplied at this time somewhere between a third and half of the numbers in the civil service, and filled a still more significant role in supplying men fo

7、r the more important positions in the government.”“It is clear from the evidence already available that in this period graduates who had no family tradition of civil service played, by virtue both of their numbers and of their official functions, a highly significant part.”- E. A. Kracke10/17/20216第

8、九講科舉制、士大夫與宋代社會(huì)Ho, Ping-ti (何炳棣何炳棣). The Ladder of Success in Imperial China: Aspects of Social Mobility, 1368-1911 明清社會(huì)史論明清社會(huì)史論(1962).明代進(jìn)士登科錄、同年遍覽錄、序齒錄明代進(jìn)士登科錄、同年遍覽錄、序齒錄清代進(jìn)士三代履歷、同年齒錄清代進(jìn)士三代履歷、同年齒錄清代鄉(xiāng)試齒錄、同年錄清代鄉(xiāng)試齒錄、同年錄A類（三代無生員）：類（三代無生員）：3696/12226; 30.2%B類（三代至少一個(gè)生員）：類（三代至少一個(gè)生員）：1471/12226; 12.1%C類（三代至少一

9、個(gè)舉人）：類（三代至少一個(gè)舉人）：7059/12226; 57.7%D類（三代至少一位三品以上官員）：類（三代至少一位三品以上官員）：691/12226; 5.7%A+B=42.3%10/17/20217第九講科舉制、士大夫與宋代社會(huì)三、對(duì)三、對(duì)Kracke與何炳棣的批評(píng)（與何炳棣的批評(píng)（1980年代）年代）Robert Hartwell (郝若貝郝若貝), “Demographic, Political, and Social Transformations in China, 750-1550” (1982)“This procedure ignores both demographic

10、reality and the role of extended family the individual or nuclear family is the wrong unit of analysis.”“If uncles are included, along with paternal grandfathers and great-grandfathers, then Krackes and Hos percentages for inter-generational mobility are rendered meaningless. When affinal relatives

11、are considered, it becomes even more likely that a new man possessed a maternal uncle, grandfather, or a father-in-law who have pursued a bureaucratic career. ”10/17/20218第九講科舉制、士大夫與宋代社會(huì)Robert Hymes（韓明士）（韓明士）, , Statesmen and Gentlemen: The Elite of Fu-chou, Chiang-hsi, in Northern and Southern Sung

12、 (1986) (1986) “Krackes conclusions might be rescued if one argued that in fact only direct lineal ties determined social status or were politically effective. But this assumption would fly in the face of much of what we know about kinship ties in Sung and in other periods. In the first place, some

13、Sung men lived in joint households, whose members shared descent from a deceased ancestor several generations before them.But apart from these cases, which seem to have been rare when the common ancestor was not an official, it is clear that effective kin ties normally extended well beyond the house

14、hold as such.”Robert Hymes教授10/17/20219第九講科舉制、士大夫與宋代社會(huì)科名錄：科名錄：18位撫州進(jìn)士（位撫州進(jìn)士（3位皇室成員）位皇室成員）“On both methodological and empirical grounds, then, Krackes figures cannot be accepted as they stand: everything suggests that they greatly overestimate the speed at which men unrelated to officials moved into

15、office.”Robert Hymes10/17/202110四、牟復(fù)禮的看法與何炳棣的回應(yīng)（四、牟復(fù)禮的看法與何炳棣的回應(yīng)（1999年以來）年以來）F. W. Mote (牟復(fù)禮牟復(fù)禮), Imperial China, 900-1800 (1999):1、Kracke的方法有問題；而韓明士等人的批評(píng)過了頭；的方法有問題；而韓明士等人的批評(píng)過了頭；2、“the examination system was the defining institution of the society”;3、“The examination system as it functioned during th

16、e Song dynasty nourished the ideal that success was open to all worthy men. That idea pervaded the society and it contributed in large measure to what is now called new culture of the Song and succeeding ages.”4、“there is little disagreement about the number of jinshi the system produced or about th

17、eir dominance of officialdom.”第九講科舉制、士大夫與宋代社會(huì)10/17/202111何炳棣：何炳棣：讀史閱世六十年讀史閱世六十年（20052005）1 1、韓明士書中對(duì)、韓明士書中對(duì)“家家”、“族族”的定義的定義“松散含混不清松散含混不清”，“舉凡撫舉凡撫州志書中所列百年及百年以上同姓同鄉(xiāng)里者都可認(rèn)為是同州志書中所列百年及百年以上同姓同鄉(xiāng)里者都可認(rèn)為是同族族，根本不顧官，根本不顧官方及世俗之以方及世俗之以族族為一五服之內(nèi)的血緣組織為一五服之內(nèi)的血緣組織”。2 2、“海氏海氏 按：即按：即HymesHymes對(duì)撫州一區(qū)對(duì)撫州一區(qū)精英精英的界說也非常廣泛：舉的界說也非

18、常廣泛：舉凡官員，鄉(xiāng)貢，一切寺廟的主要施主，創(chuàng)建或擴(kuò)充書院、修橋補(bǔ)路、倡修溝渠凡官員，鄉(xiāng)貢，一切寺廟的主要施主，創(chuàng)建或擴(kuò)充書院、修橋補(bǔ)路、倡修溝渠水道、組織地方自衛(wèi)者，皆屬于水道、組織地方自衛(wèi)者，皆屬于精英精英。甚至與以上任何一類人士有婚姻或。甚至與以上任何一類人士有婚姻或師生關(guān)系者，也一同視為師生關(guān)系者，也一同視為精英精英”。第九講科舉制、士大夫與宋代社會(huì)10/17/202112問題問題1 1、柯睿格和何炳棣是如何討論社會(huì)流動(dòng)性的？、柯睿格和何炳棣是如何討論社會(huì)流動(dòng)性的？2 2、韓明士對(duì)柯睿格的批評(píng)集中在哪些方面？、韓明士對(duì)柯睿格的批評(píng)集中在哪些方面？第九講科舉制、士大夫與宋代社會(huì)10/17

19、/202113參考文獻(xiàn)參考文獻(xiàn)Kracke, Edward A. “Family vs. Merit in Chinese Civil Examinations under the Empire,” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, 10.2 (Sept. 1947), pp. 103-123.Ho, Ping-ti (何炳棣何炳棣). The Ladder of Success in Imperial China: Aspects of Social Mobility, 1368-1911. New York: Columbia University P

20、ress, 1962. 讀史閱世六十年讀史閱世六十年。桂林：廣西師范大學(xué)出版社，。桂林：廣西師范大學(xué)出版社，2005年。年。Hartwell, Robert. “Demographic, Political, and Social Transformations in China, 750-1550,” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, 42.2 (Dec. 1982), pp. 365-442.Hymes, Robert. Statesmen and Gentlemen: The Elite of Fu-chou, Chiang-hsi, in Nort

21、hern and Southern Sung. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986.Mote, F. W. Imperial China, 900-1800. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999.Elman, Benjamin. A Cultural History of Civil Examinations in Late Imperial China. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2001.第九講科舉制、士大夫與宋代社會(huì)