论文部分内容阅读
由于归口垂直管理,《诸司职掌》所载洪武二十六年“8.5亿亩”田土数字并非严格意义上的行政、军事两大系统管辖区内的总和;《诸司职掌》所载既有湖广、河南两布政司及直隶凤阳、淮安两府“畸高”的田土数,也存在安庆府等“畸低”的田土数,不属于均一化问题。“册文讹误”仍是“公案”之争中最有效的一种解释。因此,考察《诸司职掌》田土清单这个最起码的验证手段无疑也是最有力证据。
Owing to the centralized management at the headquarters, the number of Hongwu's “850-million-mu” field recorded in “various departments in charge of administration” in the “Tushang” administration is not the sum of the administrative and military systems in the strict sense of the word; Both the Huguang, Henan, two civil divisions and the Fengyang, Chihli, Huai'an and two “abnormally high ” of the number of fields, there are also Anqing Prefecture “low ” the number of fields, does not belong to the issue of homogenization. “Corruption of the book ” is still the most effective explanation of the “public case” battle. Therefore, it is undoubtedly the most powerful evidence to examine the minimum verification method of the list of fields and land held by various departments.