《九讲中国古代社会流动的争论.ppt》由会员分享,可在线阅读,更多相关《九讲中国古代社会流动的争论.ppt(13页珍藏版)》请在三一文库上搜索。
1、2019/4/10,1,第九讲 中国古代社会流动性的争论,元代进士题名碑,2019/4/10,2,第九讲 科举制、士大夫与宋代社会,一、科举制:一个争论中的问题 艾尔曼(Benjamin Elman): A Cultural History of Civil Examinations in Late Imperial China (2000) 何炳棣:读史阅世六十年(2005) 社会流动性(social mobility),2019/4/10,3,第九讲 科举制、士大夫与宋代社会,二、争论的由来(19471962) E. A. Kracke (柯睿格), “Family versus Meri
2、t in Chinese Civil Examinations under the Empire” (1947) 绍兴十八年同年小录(1148): 330;157/279;56.3% 宝祐四年登科录(1256): 601;331/572;57.9%,2019/4/10,4,第九讲 科举制、士大夫与宋代社会,绍兴十八年同年小录: 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,故,不仕。父俊彦,見任左廸功郎、鎮江府教授。本貫紹興府山隂縣禹鄉廣陵里父為户。 第二人:董徳元,字體仁,小名丙哥,小字長夀。年五十
3、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,累至太子太保。祖蒙休,故,延賞都官,贈太子太傅。父奨,累贈少卿。本貫吉州永豐縣雲葢鄉善和里曽祖為户。 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,故,不仕。父策,未仕,本貫撫州臨川縣西團鄉文公坊父為户。,2019/4/10,5,第九讲 科举制、士大夫与宋代社会,“We have seen then, that a majority of the men passing examinations, on the e
4、vidence 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 for the more important positions in the
5、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. Kracke,2019/4/10,6,第九讲 科举制、士大夫与宋代社会,Ho, Ping-ti (何炳棣).
6、 The Ladder of Success in Imperial China: Aspects of Social Mobility, 1368-1911 明清社会史论(1962). 明代进士登科录、同年遍览录、序齿录 清代进士三代履历、同年齿录 清代乡试齿录、同年录 A类(三代无生员):3696/12226; 30.2% B类(三代至少一个生员):1471/12226; 12.1% C类(三代至少一个举人):7059/12226; 57.7% D类(三代至少一位三品以上官员):691/12226; 5.7% A+B=42.3%,2019/4/10,7,第九讲 科举制、士大夫与宋代社会,三
7、、对Kracke与何炳棣的批评(1980年代) Robert Hartwell (郝若贝), “Demographic, Political, and Social Transformations in China, 750-1550” (1982) “This procedure ignores both demographic reality and the role of extended family the individual or nuclear family is the wrong unit of analysis.” “If uncles are included, alo
8、ng with paternal grandfathers and great-grandfathers, then Krackes and Hos percentages for inter-generational mobility are rendered meaningless. When affinal relatives are considered, it becomes even more likely that a new man possessed a maternal uncle, grandfather, or a father-in-law who have purs
9、ued a bureaucratic career. ”,2019/4/10,8,第九讲 科举制、士大夫与宋代社会,Robert Hymes(韩明士), Statesmen and Gentlemen: The Elite of Fu-chou, Chiang-hsi, in Northern and Southern Sung (1986) “Krackes conclusions might be rescued if one argued that in fact only direct lineal ties determined social status or were polit
10、ically 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 Sung men lived in joint households, whose members shared descent from a deceased ancestor several generations before them.But apart from these
11、 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 household as such.”,Robert Hymes教授,2019/4/10,9,第九讲 科举制、士大夫与宋代社会,科名录:18位抚州进士(3位皇室成员) “On both methodological and empirical grounds, then, Krackes fi
12、gures cannot be accepted as they stand: everything suggests that they greatly overestimate the speed at which men unrelated to officials moved into office.” Robert Hymes,2019/4/10,10,四、牟复礼的看法与何炳棣的回应(1999年以来) F. W. Mote (牟复礼), Imperial China, 900-1800 (1999): 1、Kracke的方法有问题;而韩明士等人的批评过了头; 2、“the exami
13、nation system was the defining institution of the society”; 3、“The examination system as it functioned during the 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
14、 and succeeding ages.” 4、“there is little disagreement about the number of jinshi the system produced or about their dominance of officialdom.”,第九讲 科举制、士大夫与宋代社会,2019/4/10,11,何炳棣:读史阅世六十年(2005) 1、韩明士书中对“家”、“族”的定义“松散含混不清”,“举凡抚州志书中所列百年及百年以上同姓同乡里者都可认为是同族,根本不顾官方及世俗之以族为一五服之内的血缘组织”。 2、“海氏按:即Hymes对抚州一区精英的界说也
15、非常广泛:举凡官员,乡贡,一切寺庙的主要施主,创建或扩充书院、修桥补路、倡修沟渠水道、组织地方自卫者,皆属于精英。甚至与以上任何一类人士有婚姻或师生关系者,也一同视为精英”。,第九讲 科举制、士大夫与宋代社会,2019/4/10,12,问题 1、柯睿格和何炳棣是如何讨论社会流动性的? 2、韩明士对柯睿格的批评集中在哪些方面?,第九讲 科举制、士大夫与宋代社会,2019/4/10,13,参考文献 Kracke, Edward A. “Family vs. Merit in Chinese Civil Examinations under the Empire,” Harvard Journal
16、of Asiatic Studies, 10.2 (Sept. 1947), pp. 103-123. Ho, Ping-ti (何炳棣). The Ladder of Success in Imperial China: Aspects of Social Mobility, 1368-1911. New York: Columbia University Press, 1962. . 读史阅世六十年。桂林:广西师范大学出版社,2005年。 Hartwell, Robert. “Demographic, Political, and Social Transformations in Chi
17、na, 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 Northern 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.,第九讲 科举制、士大夫与宋代社会,
链接地址:https://www.31doc.com/p-2571187.html