|
|
|
| The Rise of Official Titles in the Tang and Song Dynasties |
| Zhou Jia |
| School of History, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, China |
|
|
|
|
Abstract The term “official title” was adopted during the Tang Dynasty for the first time and was widely used during the Song Dynasty. The emergence of this historical phenomenon is not accidental, which has not been, however, given due attention in the academia. This paper discusses the meaning of the term “official title” and the reasons for its emergence in the Tang and Song Dynasties.The earliest explanation of the term “official title” in historical records comes from the book Fengshi Wenjian Ji written by Feng Yan in the Tang Dynasty. Feng Yan had lived in the middle and late Tang Dynasty. He recorded the emergence of “official title” as a new phenomenon of his days.“Official title” has twofold connotations. The first is the continuity of the new official names and old official names. When the central government grants official titles, the new official names must be in connection with the old ones without interruption. The second is for the control on the part of the central government over the appointment and removal of officials throughout the country.There are three main historical conditions for the emergence of “official titles”. First of all, the central government centralized the appointment and removal of officials throughout the country. Only the central government had the power to grant official titles, and all the power of officials came directly from the central authority. Therefore, the awarding and receiving of official titles had a bipartite significance: the central government, through granting official titles, recognizing the identity and power of officials and an official by accepting his official title showing his recognition and obedience to the central government. Secondly, officials had a bureaucratic rank that pertained to himself and would not be lost upon the interruption of the post. Thirdly, qualifications acquired through background, years of official service, service experience and merits became the most important criteria for the assignment of the posts.It was not until the Tang Dynasty that all the above conditions appeared, and were recognized and accepted. By the Song Dynasty, they had become the principles generally accepted by the officialdom. As a result,“being an official” no longer merely meant someone working for the government, but a social status that was almost never lost once acquired.Official titles are a condensed reflection of historical changes. Since the Tang and Song Dynasties, no matter when and where an official was, his “official titles” should be written in accordance with the official certificate issued by the central government. The number of words could not be increased or decreased, and the ranking order could not be changed.In the Tang and Song Dynasties, the number of dispatch duties increased. Whether a certain dispatch duty could be a permanent official title became a subject of frequent discussion of the time. For the imperial court, whether a special dispatch duty should become part of an official title mainly depended on whether it had the necessity of long-term existence. For officials, if their dispatch duties became their official titles, their service experience on this dispatch duty can then be recorded and counted as seniority, hence giving momentum to future promotions.The Tang Dynasty needed dispatch duties to cope with the ever-changing sociopolitical circumstances but was unwilling to institutionalize these dispatch posts. Compared with the Tang Dynasty, the Song Dynasty was faster in the process of the creation of new posts or titles. Later, the imperial court would adjust the diction of official titles at any time as the situation changed. On the one hand, official titles in the Song Dynasty were numerous and complicated. On the other hand, the bureaucratic system of the Song Dynasty was flexible and pragmatic, and it adjusted itself quickly in the face of social changes.
|
|
Received: 13 April 2023
|
|
|
|
1 脱脱等： 《宋史》，北京：中华书局，1977年。
2 洪适： 《隶释》，见《四部丛刊三编》第206—213册，上海：上海书店，1985年。
3 闫章虎： 《〈北海相景君铭〉相关问题研究》，《书法研究》2017年第1期，第108-119页。
4 罗新、叶炜： 《新出魏晋南北朝墓志疏证》，北京：中华书局，2005年。
5 叶国良： 《石学蠡探》，台北：大安出版社，1989年。
6 郭茂育、刘继保编著： 《宋代墓志辑释》，郑州：中州古籍出版社，2016年。
7 徐自明： 《宋宰辅编年录校补》，王瑞来校补，北京：中华书局，1986年。
8 佚名编： 《宋大诏令集》，司义祖校点，北京：中华书局，1962年。
9 周峰编： 《贞珉千秋：散佚辽宋金元墓志辑录》，兰州：甘肃教育出版社，2020年。
10 美］柏文莉： 《权力关系：宋代中国的家族、地位与国家》，刘云军译，南京：江苏人民出版社，2015年。
11 阎步克： 《品位与职位：秦汉魏晋南北朝官阶制度研究》，北京：中华书局，2002年。
12 阎步克： 《中国古代官阶制度引论》，北京：北京大学出版社，2010年。
13 封演： 《封氏闻见记校注》，赵贞信校注，北京：中华书局，2005年。
14 邓小南： 《宋代文官选任制度诸层面》（修订本），北京：中华书局，2021年。
15 徐松辑： 《宋会要辑稿》，刘琳、刁忠民、舒大刚等校点，上海：上海古籍出版社，2014年。
16 永瑢等： 《四库全书总目》，北京：中华书局，1965年。
17 黄永年： 《唐史史料学》，北京：中华书局，2015年。
18 李焘： 《续资治通鉴长编》，北京：中华书局，2004年。
19 汪桂海： 《汉印制度杂考》，《历史研究》1997年第3期，第82-91页。
20 杜佑： 《通典》，王文锦、王永兴、刘俊文等点校，北京：中华书局，2016年。
21 李林甫等： 《唐六典》，陈仲夫点校，北京：中华书局，1992年。
22 薛居正等： 《旧五代史》（修订本），北京：中华书局，2015年。
23 吴宗国： 《盛唐政治制度研究》，上海：上海辞书出版社，2003年。
24 陈仲安、王素： 《汉唐职官制度研究》（增订本），上海：中西书局，2018年。
25 刘啸： 《隋代三省制及相关问题研究》，北京：中华书局，2021年。
26 欧阳修、宋祁： 《新唐书》，北京：中华书局，1975年。
27 刘昫等： 《旧唐书》，北京：中华书局，1975年。
28 赖瑞和： 《唐职官书不载许多使职：前因与后果》，见杜文玉主编： 《唐史论丛》第19辑，西安：三秦出版社，2014年，第1-21页。 |
|
|
|
2023, Vol. 53 
