论文部分内容阅读
依據明代《會試録》、《登科録》等更爲原始的記載,可以確證《明實録》對永樂十三年、成化二十三年會試録取數以及永樂二年、宣德二年,正統七年、十三年,成化二年、五年、十一年、十四年,弘治九年、十五年,正德六年,嘉靖五年、十一年、十七年、三十五年,隆慶二年,萬曆八年、二十九年、三十五年、三十八年等科殿試賜進士數的記載都是錯誤的,而其對殿試賜進士數的誤載又大多緣於把會試録取數混同於殿試廷對人數所致。此外,《明實録》對永樂二十二年以及萬曆二十年、二十六年、三十二年、四十一年、四十七年等科殿試賜進士數的記載也應是錯誤的,但因目前尚未尋得比其更加權威的史料作爲證據,故只得存疑待考。
According to the more original records such as “will try to record” and “Deng Ke Lu” in the Ming Dynasty, it is possible to confirm that the records of “Records of Ming Dynasty” on the number of trials recorded in Thirteen Years of Yongle and Twenty-three Years of Chenghua and two years of Xuande, Orthodox seven years, thirteen years, Chenghua two years, five years, eleven years, fourteen years, Hongzhi nine years, fifteen years, Masanori six years, Jiajing five years, eleven years, seventeen years, thirty Five years, Longqing two years, Wanli eight years, twenty-nine years, thirty-five years, thirty-eight years of subjects such as examination of the number of subjects awarded Scholars are wrong, Due to the number of the trial will be mixed with the number of people in the trial court. In addition, Ming Shi Lu recorded Paradise Twenty-two years and Wanli twenty years, twenty-six years, thirty-two years, forty-one years, forty-seven years and other sections of the trial number of Scholars should also be mistaken However, because we have not yet found any more authoritative historical evidence as evidence, we have to question it for further examination.