中国古代社会流动性的争论.ppt

* * 中国古代社会流动性的争论 元代进士题名碑 * * 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） * * 二、争论的由来（1947－1962） E. A. Kracke (柯睿格), “Family versus Merit 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% * * 《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。 * * “We have seen then, that a majority of 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 for 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. Kracke * * Ho, Ping-ti (何炳棣). 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% * * 三、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, along with paternal gra