^{page 331 note 1} So far the best brief theoretical study of social stratification in traditional China is T. T. Ch'ü, “Chinese Class Structure and its Ideology,” in Fairbank, J. K., ed., Chinese Thought and Institutions (Chicago, 1957), pp. 235–50.Google Scholar

^{page 332 note 2} For an authoritative discussion of the full significance of the civil-service examination system during and after Empress Wu, cf. Ch'en Yin-ch'üch, , T'ang-tai cheng-chih-shih lüehlun- kao (Chungking, 1942).Google Scholar

^{page 332 note 3} For a systematic study of the structure of traditional Chinese society from the legal point of view, cf. Ch'ü, T. T., Chung-kuo fa-lü yü Chung-kuo she-hui (Shanghai, 1947)Google Scholar, esp. chs 4, “Social Classes”.

^{page 333 note 4} Ch'üan, Han-sheng, “Export and Import Trade of the East Capital of the Northern Sung Period,” Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica, vol. 8, part 2,1939;Google Scholar his “Government Officials and Private Trade during the Sung Period,” Ibid., vol. 7, part 2, 1936. Hsi, Sung, “Avenues through which Rich Merchants of Sung Times Entered Officialdom,” Ta-lu tsa-chih, vol. 4, no. 11, 1952. (All these are in Chinese).Google Scholar

^{page 334 note 5} For relevant facts and figures, cf. my “The Salt Merchants of Yang-chou: A Study of Commercial Capitalism in Eighteenth-Century China,” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, June, 1954.Google Scholar

^{page 334 note 6} Barber, Elinor G., The Bourgeoisie in 18th Century France (Princeton, 1955).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 335 note 7} Statistics will be presented in my projected book.

^{page 335 note 8} Many of the recent findings on social mobility are summarized in an excellent synthesis, Barber, Bernard, Social Stratification, A Comparative Analysis of Structure and Process (New York, 1956)Google Scholar, from which I have drawn generalizations on Western societies for comparison with the Chinese.

^{page 336 note 9} Cf. my Studies on the Population of China, 1368–1953, ch. 1. The manuscript is in the Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

^{page 337 note 10} Chen-chuan hsien-sheng ch'üan-chi, Google Scholar (Commercial Press ed.), ch. 13, pp. 2a-2b.

^{page 337 note 11} Cited in Hiroshi, Fujii, “A Study of Hui-chou Merchants, II,” in Toyo Gakuho, vol. 36, no. 2, September, 1953.Google Scholar

^{page 338 note 12} The totals include those higher degreeholders of Hui-chou who had emigrated.

^{page 338 note 13} For concrete illustrations, cf. my “Salt Merchants”.

^{page 339 note *} The numbers within the brackets under the years are total numbers of candidates of all statuses.

^{page 339 note 1} Several categories of soldiers combined.

^{page 339 note 2} Two categories of salt-makers combined.

^{page 339 note 3} Thousands of rich families were forced to reside in the metropolitan area at the beginnings of the Ming period. Although most of them gradually lost their wealth in a few generations, family status remained unchanged.

^{page 341 note 14} T'ang, Hsiang-lung, “A Statistical Study of the Chüan-chien System in the Tao-kuang Period,” Quarterly Journal of Social Sciences, vol. 2, no. 4, December, 1931 (in Chinese)Google Scholar.

^{page 341 note 15} Chang, Chung-li, The Chinese Gentry (Seattle, 1955), Part I.Google Scholar

^{page 342 note 16} Tawney, R. H., “The Rise of the Gentry, 1558–1640,” Economic History Review, vol. 11, no. 1, 1941.Google Scholar

^{page 342 note 17} Note that the term “gentry” is independently rejected by Kracke, E. A., Jr., Civil Service in Early Sung China, 960–1067 (Cambridge, Mass., 1953).Google Scholar

^{page 343 note *} The total numbers of chin-shih are those whose family histories are given. For textual reasons certain numbers of chin-shih have to be excluded from each list.

^{page 344 note **} For this year information is available for only two preceding generations.

^{page 346 note 18} Well summarized in Barber, B., op. cit., pp. 431–36.Google Scholar

^{page 346 note 19} “Social Class of Cambridge University Alumni of the 18th and 19th Centuries,” British Journal of Sociology, vol. 1, no. 2, June, 1950.Google Scholar

^{page 348 note 20} Geiger, Theodor, “An Historical Study of the Origins and Structure of the Danish Intellegentsia,” British Journal of Sociology, vol. 1, no. 3, September, 1950CrossRefGoogle Scholar. It is interesting to observe that the portion of Danish intellectuals of “lower” social origins steadily dropped from a height of nearly 30 per cent at the Reformation (1536) to a mere 10 per cent around 1835, although there was a slight upward turn thereafter till 1910. During a period of nearly four centuries the “professions” rose from insignificance to predominance. The unusual circumstances at the time of the Reformation are in a sense comparable to those in early Ming China.

^{page 349 note *} Yin, a hereditary privilege, was generally regarded as an “orthodox” entrance into the ruling class. The yin of the 6th and 7th generations of the Chi family was especially conferred by imperial grace on descendants of those who died in civil war.

^{page 351 note 21} Cited in Ch'en, Ch'i-yüan, Yung-hsien-chai pi-chi (preface dated 1874), ch. 1, pp. 5a-5b.Google Scholar Ch'en was a member of the Ch'en clan of Hai-ning.

^{page 352 note 22} Ts'ao-mu-tzu (1529 ed.), ch. 4, p. 120 bGoogle Scholar.

^{page 352 note 23} Ch'ien Yung, , Lü-yüan ts'ung-hua (preface dated 1835), ch. 7, p. 7a.Google Scholar

^{page 352 note 24} Tawney, op. cit. (see note 16).

^{page 352 note 25} Cf. my “Salt Merchants” (note 5).

^{page 353 note 26} Ke-tuan-su-kung chi (1802 reprint), ch. 7, pp. 17b-19a.Google Scholar

^{page 353 note 27} Sir Namier, Lewis B., The Structure of Politics at the Accession of George III (London, 1957), ch. 1.Google Scholar

^{page 354 note 28} Chao, T'ieh-han, “The Prefectural Schools of Sung Times,” Ta-lu tsa-chih, vol. 7, no. 10–11, 1953.Google Scholar

^{page 355 note 29} For details, cf. Huang, Tsung-hsi (1610–1695), Ming-ju hsüeh-an, passim.Google Scholar

^{page 356 note 30} This learned commentary on the special examination of 1692 is in Chang Chü-sheng hsien-sheng ch'i-shih sheng-jih chi-nien lun-wen-chi (Shanghai, 1935).Google Scholar

^{page 356 note 31} Chin-shih, Google Scholar lists of 18th century are extremely rare. We have a list of specially selected kung-sheng, Google Scholar for the entire country for the year 1789. Out of a total of 1,149 successful candidates only 190, or 16.6 per cent, fall into our category A. A few other 18th century lists extant are all of chü-jen and kung-sheng, on a provincial scale. They are too fragmentary for a study of general trend.

^{page 357 note 32} For a systematic critique of various types of population data of the Ming and Ch'ing periods, cf. my Population, chs. 1–5.

^{page 358 note 33} For detailed discussion of various economic and institutional factors in Ming and Ch'ing times, cf. my Population, chs. 6–10 (in press, see note 9).

^{page 359 note 34} The percentages of chin-shih from non-official families in Sung times, as shown in two lists extant which are carefully analyzed in Kracke, , “Family vs. Merit in Chinese Civil Service Examinations under the Empire,” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, vol. 10, pp. 103–123, 1947CrossRefGoogle Scholar, are quite comparable to our Ming category A figures. However, the only two surviving Sung lists give scantier information on candidates’ family histories. Besides, since in Sung times there were no formal academic degrees lower than chin-shih, it is likely that portions of Sung chin-shih from non-official families are not strictly comparable to our category A candidates in family background. Although most of the channels of social mobility existed in Sung times, they were much more widely extended in the Ming period.