近年對元代「四等人制」及相關議題的討論

A Review of Recent Discussions Regarding the“Quadripartite Class System”in the Yuan Dynasty

對於元代各族群在政治、法律等方面的待遇差異，二十世紀的學者們大抵將其概括為「四等人制」。該說以箭內亙提出「三等人制」為開端，經學者近一步補充、修正，最後由蒙思明的《元代社會階級制度》為代表，總結為「四等人制」。此後，「四等人制」成為元史研究的通說之一，但隨著新資料的山現和新研究推展，「四等人制」開始受到部分學者質疑。舩田善之於1999年發表〈元朝治下の色目人について〉一文，重新檢視「四等人制」的說法，並提出商榷意見。他將該文用中文改寫成〈色目人與元代制度、社會──重新探討蒙古、色目、漢人、南人劃分的位置〉後，在中文學界引起熱議，除了爭論「四等人制」的通說是否真能適用，也連帶引出「色目人」的詞源與概念問題、「元代多族群任官的現象是統治者有意行制衡之術，或是出於實際統治的考量」、「對於元代各族群的差別待遇，該理解為民族歧視，還是各從本俗」等議題。本文試圖列舉箭內亙以降對於元代族群地位的代表性論述，兼及議題討論過程中，衍生出的種種問題，進而指出此一爭論的癥結，並提出研究展望。

"Scholars in the twentieth century frequently employed the term“Quadripartite Class System”(「四等人制」) to generalize the Yuan goverment’s ethnic discriminations in politics and jurisprudence. After Yanai Watari (箭內亙) outlined his model of tripartite stratification, scholars have expanded this concept and proposed similar ideas. Most notably, Meng Ssu-ming’s (蒙思明) model of a quadripartite class system has become the canonical understanding. However, since Funada Yoshiyuki’s (舩田善之) article in 1999, many have started to challenge the received wisdom and pointed out some relevant questions: What is the textual evidence for such a“system”? What is the etymology of the term“Semu”(色目)? Did the Yuan government advertently adopted multiethnic policies? Were the discriminative practices meant to be institutional oppression or merely a reflection of the stereotype for each ethnic group’s traditions (ge cong bensu各從本俗)? This review seeks to untangle the issue, identify the crux of the problem, and lay out the directions for further studies."