清代官年问题再检讨——以多份朱卷所记不同生年为中心  

Reconsidering the Ages of Officials in the Qing dynasty:A Case Study of the Conflicting Age Entries in Different Imperial Civil Examination Papers

作　　者：鲁小俊[1,2] 

机构地区：[1]武汉大学文学院 [2]武汉大学中国传统文化研究中心

出　　处：《清史研究》2015年第1期90-101,共12页The Qing History Journal

基　　金：国家社科基金项目<清代书院课艺总集叙录>(13CZW053);教育部人文社科项目<清代书院课艺总集考述>(10YJC751059)阶段性成果

摘　　要：综合考察《清代朱卷集成》中有多份朱卷且所记生年不同的154人,并参考《清代官员履历档案全编》中的相关记载,可以发现:清代的官年歧异现象,以减岁为主导趋向,追求"年轻化";会试朱卷中的生年,较多地成为做官后年龄的"定本";也有曾以官年应试,后以实年做官者,但这只是少数人;官年与实年的岁差,多在数岁乃至十数岁,其中三四年、五六年,最为常见,七八年、九十年,也不在少数;同一人的多份朱卷,所记出生年份越早者越接近于实年。我们也可由此确定著录生年的一个原则:在没有其他传记资料佐证的情况下,宜以所记出生年份最早之朱卷为依据,简称"早岁优先"。Comparing 154 examinees found in the Zhujuan Collection of Qing Dynasty whose ages were different than that recorded in The Curriculum Vitae Collection of Officials in Qing Dynasty, we can make the following conclusions. The mainstream trend in Qing Dynasty was to list your age as younger. The year of birth was usually confirmed in the metropolitan examination, but only a few officials gave their correct age. The gap between official ages and authentic ages was ordinarily three to six years, but seven to ten year differences were common too. The older age in different Zhujuan was normally the most credible. So we should believe the older age when there is no other strong evidence about the official＇ s age.

关 键 词：清代 官年 朱卷 履历档案 

分 类 号：K249[历史地理—历史学]