何炳棣与艾尔曼之争重探——写在艾尔曼《晚期帝制中国的科举文化》中译本问世之际

Re-Exploration of the Dispute between He Bingdi and Elman—Written on the Occasion of the Publication of the Chinese Version of Aerman’s The Imperial Examination Culture of Late Imperial China

美国普林斯顿大学艾尔曼教授在《晚期帝制中国的科举文化》中,意外地把具有役籍性质的明代进士的户籍,给人以误当成家世之感,使得本怀疑科举社会流动率的艾氏自己的统计,比“流动派”主将、美籍华人何炳棣教授提供的平民比例还要高。何炳棣与之争鸣时无意之中将错就错,并转换概念,把艾氏的“反证”作为“乌龙”回敬艾氏。这貌似一剑封喉,实则是重蹈覆辙。而一些不知情的两岸学者,把何氏的“回敬”当作定论一再证引,这又对本不该发生的“学案”的广为人知,起了推波助澜的作用。为维护两位汉学大师的学术形象,阻止不确之论的进一步扩散,今后在进行相关学术史回顾时,不该把何氏的“回敬”再当定论来征引,同时应在两部经典再版时更正或剔除不当部分。

In Imperial Examination Culture in Late Imperial China,Professor Elman of Princeton University accidentally mistook the registered residence of Jinshi in the Ming Dynasty with the nature of service registration for family background.This makes Aerman’s own statistics,which suspected the social mobility rate of the imperial examination,higher than the proportion of civilians provided by Professor He Bingdi,the leader of the“mobile faction”school and a Chinese American.When He Bingdi argued with him,he inadvertently made a mistake and converted the concepts,returning Elman’s“counter evidence”as his proof to Elman.This may seem like a sword to the throat,but it is actually a repeat of the same mistake.Some scholars on both sides of the Taiwan Strait who did not know about it repeatedly cited Professor He’s“retaliation”as a conclusive conclusion,which has contributed to the widespread awareness of the“academic case”that should not have occurred.Therefore,in order to maintain the academic image of the two sinology masters and prevent the further spread of the uncertainty,when reviewing the relevant academic history,we should not refer to He’s“response”as a conclusive conclusion.At the same time,I hope to correct or eliminate the inappropriate parts when the two classics are reprinted.