All Title Author
Keywords Abstract

-  2016 

宋代应策时文概论

Keywords: 宋代科举,应策,时文
imperial examination
,policy essay

Full-Text   Cite this paper   Add to My Lib

Abstract:

宋代应策时文最早出现在制科考试中,熙宁三年进士殿试,首次采用制策问答的方式考试,此后,殿试以策取士,大致沿袭不变。熙宁以后,士人逐渐将更多的学习热情转移到策问的写作上。殿试制策,考核士人两个方面的能力:对现实政治弊病的了解和应对方案,综合分析、归纳等逻辑思考能力和语言表达能力。宋代士人必须时时联系现实政治思考问题,他们进入仕途后,热衷于变革,时而大胆批评朝政,直抒己见,这与应策考试的训练有一定的关系。从格式角度考察,制策需要考核考生对现实社会和政治的多方面综合思考的能力,一道制策中总是提出多个问题。所以,应策时文事实上是由多篇政论文组成,与平常一题一议的政论文不同。应策时文受题目、时间、地点的限定,又有考试录取的现实目的,考生为了进入仕途,必须揣摩帝王或当政者的想法,以此作为应策时文的主要论点,贯穿全文。更有甚者,恶意攻击当时政坛上受排挤压迫的政治派别,应策时文遂堕落为朝廷鹰犬。此外,考生有个人经历的局限,回答问题时又有诸多功名利禄的考虑,面对现实政治和制策提问,绝大多数应策时文不可能提供深刻的见解,空疏肤浅是应策时文的通病。
Abstract:The stratagem and suggestion writing first appeared in the zhike examination (a special imperial examination in the Song Dynasty). In the palace examination in 1070, the text took a form of policy-making questionnaire. Afterwards, this kind of examination was regularized and inherited through dynasties. Thus scholars gradually devoted more efforts into stratagem and suggestion writing. In palace examination, two capacities were considered important: knowledge of political ills and corresponding policies, comprehensive analysis and expression ability. Song scholars, who were requested to consider problems with the context of real politics, were keen to make changes and bold in criticizing the government, which could be partly related to the training before examination. From the perspective of the format, the system needed to assess the candidates of comprehensive thinking on social and political dimensions, and usually had several questions under one subject. Therefore, the answering sheet was actually composed of a few pieces of article, different from the one-question-one-answering sheet. As the policy essays were limited by subject, time and place, with practical purposes in addition, most candidates tried to cater for the rulers in praise of the current politics. They would figure out the real thought of authority and took it as the main argument of the essay. Some of them went so far in malicious attacks against the groups in disadvantage. Limited by personal experiences and consideration on fame and fortune, most policy essays could not provide insightful opinions. Shallow emptiness was the common defect

Full-Text

comments powered by Disqus