明清的樂戶：基於一種特殊官方體制的考察

Musician Households of the Ming and Qing Dynasties: A Study Based on a Special Government Institution

本文研究的對象——樂戶，是長期被社會歧視的賤民。明代設立「樂戶」這一世襲的戶籍，雖離不開類似的思維，但因為任務的需要，即使不斷有官員提出異議，仍然給予特定的社會「空間」，以類似「樂隊」的型式，在宮廷、王府、孔府與地方衙門的典禮上演奏。不過，樂戶除規定的任務之外，常有額外的差遣，甚至必須繳納陋規。由於地方藩王及其子弟，私娶女樂生育子女，朝廷雖屢次申誡，但成效不佳，故在1565年裁撤所有王府的樂工。至1579年，因張居正等人認為明太祖所立制度不可廢棄，乃又重新恢復。與明代相比，清代樂工在「公家的領域」露臉的機會越來越少。1659年以後，宮中不再有女樂。清代王府也不設置樂工。明代以來，在類似嘉年華會的迎春典禮上，樂戶經常出現其中，甚至扮演春官、春吏等角色，至清代被視為荒誕不經。故1660-1670年代，地方官與朝廷陸續下令，整頓這一儀式。至1723年與1725年，朝廷先後解放山西、陜西與全國的樂戶，爾後其身分等同平民，且不再受官方約束。樂戶解放之後，宮廷的樂工亦不再使用樂戶，另尋其他來源。然而，樂戶雖被豁免賤民身分，但差事並未真正去除，應繳的陋規還是存在。樂戶一向不准就學，身分解放後原本以為可與普通人平起平坐，但1771年政策逆轉，規定必須四代之後才能報考或捐官，可見賤民解放是虛有其表，他們還是被排斥的社會邊緣人。 Musician households had long been discriminated against by the society as social outcasts. The Ming Dynasty included “musician households” as a hereditary professional caste in its household registration system based on this way of thinking. Despite continuous protests from court officials, the Ming Dynasty “musician households” were given a specific social space due to the need of their skills. They performed as a group similar to an orchestra at ceremonies held at courts, the princes’ mansions, the Kong Family Mansion, and local government offices. However, in addition to fulfill mandatory duties, they were often subjugated to extra assignments and even had to pay extralegal fees. Because the princes and their children would take female musicians as secret concubines and have offspring, the court had to give them reprimands repeatedly, though without much effect. Therefore, in 1565 the court ordered the dismissal of all the musicians serving in princes’ mansions. In 1579, Zhang Juzheng and others believed that this institution was established by the founder of the Ming Dynasty and must not be abolished. As such, the musician household was restored. In comparison with musicians of the Ming Dynasty, Qing Dynasty musicians had fewer opportunities to perform in the “official sphere.” After 1659, female musicians no longer performed in the court princes’ mansions. During the Ming Dynasty, musicians often appeared at carnival-like welcome-Spring ritual and even played the role of the Spring-officials in the ritual. This practice was considered preposterous during the Qing Dynasty. Therefore, both the court and local governments issued several orders between the 1660s and 1670s to rectify this practice. The court emancipated musician households in Shanxi and Shaanxi in 1723, and nationwide in 1725. A musician’s legal status was thenceforth the same as that of a commoner, and the government no longer kept tracking on musician households’ activities. After the emancipation, the court no longer used musicians from musician households and started to recruit musicians elsewhere. Yet though no longer outcasts, musicians were not relieved of their duties, and they still had to pay additional irregular extralegal fees. Musicians had never been allowed to attend schools, nor did they keep the status of a commoner after the emancipation. In 1771 there was a reversal of policy, which stipulated that only a fourth-generation musician could take the civil service examinations or buy a government position. Evidently, the emancipation was an empty promise; musicians remained marginalized people discriminated against by society.

Musician households had long been discriminated against by the society as social outcasts. The Ming Dynasty included “musician households” as a hereditary professional caste in its household registration system based on this way of thinking. Despite continuous protests from court officials, the Ming Dynasty “musician households” were given a specific social space due to the need of their skills. They performed as a group similar to an orchestra at ceremonies held at courts, the princes’ mansions, the Kong Family Mansion, and local government offices. However, in addition to fulfill mandatory duties, they were often subjugated to extra assignments and even had to pay extralegal fees. Because the princes and their children would take female musicians as secret concubines and have offspring, the court had to give them reprimands repeatedly, though without much effect. Therefore, in 1565 the court ordered the dismissal of all the musicians serving in princes’ mansions. In 1579, Zhang Juzheng and others believed that this institution was established by the founder of the Ming Dynasty and must not be abolished. As such, the musician household was restored. In comparison with musicians of the Ming Dynasty, Qing Dynasty musicians had fewer opportunities to perform in the “official sphere.” After 1659, female musicians no longer performed in the court princes’ mansions. During the Ming Dynasty, musicians often appeared at carnival-like welcome-Spring ritual and even played the role of the Spring-officials in the ritual. This practice was considered preposterous during the Qing Dynasty. Therefore, both the court and local governments issued several orders between the 1660s and 1670s to rectify this practice. The court emancipated musician households in Shanxi and Shaanxi in 1723, and nationwide in 1725. A musician’s legal status was thenceforth the same as that of a commoner, and the government no longer kept tracking on musician households’ activities. After the emancipation, the court no longer used musicians from musician households and started to recruit musicians elsewhere. Yet though no longer outcasts, musicians were not relieved of their duties, and they still had to pay additional irregular extralegal fees. Musicians had never been allowed to attend schools, nor did they keep the status of a commoner after the emancipation. In 1771 there was a reversal of policy, which stipulated that only a fourth-generation musician could take the civil service examinations or buy a government position. Evidently, the emancipation was an empty promise; musicians remained marginalized people discriminated against by society.