2009年历史文献学专业博士论文摘要

1、清国史馆《儒林传》研究

论文作者：马延炜
导师姓名：黄爱平
培养单位：历史学院清史所
论文名称：清国史馆《儒林传》研究

    学术界近年有关清代学术史的研究，在对清人学术成就各个方面的具体问题进行钻研的同时，也开始着力于清学史研究本身之历史脉络的清理。表现之一就是章太炎、刘师培、梁启超、钱穆等近代以来的清学史研究大师们的相关著述，逐渐开始被重新审视，并产生了一批成果。这样的分析，有助于我们重新审视清学史研究中的一些已有看法，特别是有助于重新分析其中的一些“定论”，更有助于促进清学史研究的进一步深入。但是需要注意的是，对于清代学术史的分析，并不始于清季民初的这几位大师。从嘉庆中叶开始，清人对本朝学术的梳理已渐成系统，并留下了一批著作，具体又可分为传记体和书志体两种体裁。这些传统学术史一方面反映出了清人对于其自身时代学术的看法，另一方面因其纂辑的时间亦在清代，所记录的对象又是清代学术史，所以本身也是清代学术的组成部分。因此，对这些清人自撰清学史的研究和分析，使我们可以从清人的角度和眼光来看待清代学术史，有助于破除一些似是而非的看法，有益于作更接近现场的深入研究。但是目前学界对这些著作的关注仍相当有限，以其中传记体的学术史而言，已有的研究主要集中在《国朝汉学师承记》和《国朝学案小识》等几部有限的著作上。对于同样以传记方式描绘清学史，并出自清朝官方修史机构——国史馆的清国史《儒林传》，却缺乏应有的关注。清国史馆，是清朝纂修本朝历史的官方修史机构。有学者认为其滥觞于入关前所置内三院中的国史院，因其有编纂史书之职能。然此内国史院与多年之后始设的国史馆并无因革替代关系。国史馆正式设置是在康熙二十九年，为纂修太祖、太宗、世祖三朝实录而设，书成馆撤，还不是常设机构。乾隆三十年，为重修国史列传而开国史馆，从此成为常设机构。主要任务是纂修各朝纪、传、表、志及《大清一统志》、《皇清奏议》等史籍。《儒林传》是清国史馆所纂修之国史列传中的一种，和传统纪传体史书中的《儒林传》一样，也是一部学者类传。从时间上看，清国史馆《儒林传》的编辑，受到了嘉庆中叶以来清人对本朝学术梳理之风渐盛的影响，和这一阶段私家所撰述的清学史一样，本身即是清代学术发展到一定阶段的产物。但是，和这些私家撰述不同的是，清国史馆的《儒林传》并非一次一时纂就，而是经历了从纂成初稿，到进行修订，拟成定本，乃至多次续修的复杂过程。所以，和一般清人私家所作之清学史著述至多只能记载到著者生存时代的情况不同的是，清国史《儒林传》，因为前后纂辑多次，较为全面地记述了清代学术的基本情况。但是目前学术界对于这部重要著作的研究却非常有限，并多人云亦云之处。本文的研究，通过对第一历史档案馆所藏清国史馆原始档案的发掘和分析，辅以对清人别集、笔记、年谱等文献的钩稽，首先复原出该传文本形成的原始过程，在此基础上，对现存该传诸种版本进行调查，厘清各种本子之间的次第顺序，指出其中的因革递变关系，并通过对不同时期传文的比较，见出时代变迁、学术风尚之变化对传文写作的影响。随后对清国史馆《儒林传》纂修与清代汉、宋学术关系，清朝最高统治者对历史书写之影响等方面的研究，发掘是传编写背后的思想史与文化史。最后，通过是传与同时期学林类传记（《国朝汉学师承记》）、后代学林类传记（《清史稿•儒林传》）的比较，分析该传与这些传记之间的关系。各部分主要内容和具体章节如下：第一部分为《绪论》。主要是本文的研究方法、研究主旨、内容架构等相关问题的说明。第二部分是研究的主体部分。共分五个章节：第一章为《文本形成》。该章首先对嘉庆中叶以来所兴起的，清人自撰本朝学术史之风进行分析，通过对这一时期清人自撰清学史著述的调查，描述了清国史馆《儒林传》开始纂修时候的学术环境。其次通过对原始档案的调查分析，对相关清人别集、日记、年谱等资料的钩稽，复原了清国史馆历次纂修《儒林传》的原始过程。第二章为《历次纂修文本之比较》，该章首先对现存清国史馆《儒林传》之各种文本的数量、版本、藏地等情况进行调查。发现清国史馆《儒林传》目前传世的本子，在卷帙方面，主要有不分卷、四卷、八卷、二卷等几种，而在这些不同卷数的本子中，又各自有其钞本、稿本、刊本等不同形式的版本。本文认为，这些实际上就是清国史馆历次纂修《儒林传》所成的稿子。其次对这些历次纂修文本之间的异同与其间的递变关系进行研究，并通过以其中颜元、李塨传记之变化为典型的分析，见出清人对这些为后代所熟知的学者的看法变化，以说明对某些学界已有看法重新加以审视的必要性。第三章为《清国史馆〈儒林传〉的编修与汉宋之争——以初稿为中心的考察》，该章首先分析了传统学术史编修历史上“道学”、“儒林”两派的争论，认为清初《明史》纂修时，将《道学传》归入《儒林传》，对清国史馆《儒林传》的编修具有重要影响。其次通过分析初稿编写时，围绕着体例、入传人物等方面汉、宋学者的不同意见，特别是主张宋学的“桐城派”学者的言论，以及阮元作为主持者的取舍，来讨论这部“当代学术史”所折射出的清中叶的汉宋之争，本文认为，阮元所主导修撰的初稿，虽然标榜汉宋兼采，但在实际的编修中却明显流露出扬汉抑宋的倾向。第四章为《清后期的国史编修与〈儒林传〉——以最高统治者对历史书写的控制为中心》。该章认为，在清代的前后期，清帝对于国史的控制的着重点各有不同，前期以御览国史列传成稿，并对其中具体的文字内容提出意见，命史官秉承己意进行修改为主；后期则较少直接对传稿的具体内容下达谕旨，转而以大量命令史馆为某人立传，即“宣付史馆”为主。最高统治者这种对历史书写的控制，都是以清朝现实统治的巩固为出发点，并且在清代后期表现的尤为明显。其次通过对清代后期宣付史馆，入《儒林传》之人物事迹的研究，分析了清代后期最高统治者出于巩固统治之政治考量，对于《儒林传》书写所进行的控制，说明该传之编修过程中也存在有政治因素的影响，但是这并没有改变该传作为一部学者类传的基本面貌。第五章为《与其他传记体清学史的比较》。是章共分两节，第一节是该传初稿与《国朝汉学师承记》的比较研究，通过将两传传目、传文方面的详细比较，本文不认同前人关于此二书关系上的已有看法，认为虽然同为清代嘉庆中叶产生，同为通过清初至清中叶之主要学者立传的方式，来描述这一阶段清代学术史的著作。但二者之间虽然有部分相似一致的地方，却存在着不小的差异，从入传标准到具体传文写作的体例格式上，他们都各有各的一套标准，很难明确断定究竟是谁沿袭或模仿了谁。第二节是该传与《清史稿•儒林传》的比较研究，本节通过分析《清史稿•儒林传》之文本形成的情况，并将两传进行详细比较，认为后者从序文、传目设计到传文都大量参考了清国史馆中的《儒林传》，受其影响可谓非常深厚。第三部分为结论，为对上一部分所进行之各项研究的整体性总结。最后是附录和参考文献。

    The study on history of Qing learning in recent years solves a variety of questions about Qing scholars’ academic achievements. In the meantime, some researchers are paying close attention to reorganizing the history of the study itself. As a matter of fact, those weighty books and papers were written by great masters such as Zhang Taiyan(章太炎), Liu Shiper(刘师培)，Liang Qichao(梁启超)and Qian Mu(钱穆)are reexamined gradually. New works have been born in the course of the reexamination. These analyses have contributed to reexamine the views which have already been recognized by most researchers, have contributed to reexamine some final conclusions, and will advance the study of the history of Qing learning. But, it is necessary to acquaintance the fact that the analyses on the history of Qing learning was not started by those great masters in Late Qing and Early Min. The Qing scholars those lived in Mid- Jiaqing era had already explained it in a systematic way. Most of their works can be easily found nowadays, and classified according to its target of recording, biographical form and bibliographical form. These traditional works not only represent the Qing scholars’ view of their own learning, but also be an important part of the history of Qing learning, because they were compiled in Qing Dynasty. For this reason, we can study the history of Qing learning from Qing scholars’ angle by examining those historical works which were written by themselves. It will contribute to analyze the related academic question in depth. But the researchers’ concern of these works is so limit that most studies are concentrated on a few books among them, such as Guochao Hanxue Shichengji(《国朝汉学师承记》)and Guochao Xuean Xiaoshi（《国朝学案小识》）. Few researcher pay attention to the National Rulin biography, which portrays the history of Qing learning in Biographical form and complied by the National Archives. The National Archives in Qing Dynasty is the official bureau in charge of writing and preserving national history. Some researches believe that its fountainhead is the Nei Guoshiyuan(内国史院)which was established before 1644, because its duty of compiling history. In fact, there are no relationships between these two things，because the cabinet and Hanlin Academy, not the National Archives, were substitute for Nei Guoshiyuan after many years. The National Archives was formally opened for compiling the Shi Lu(《实录》)of  Taizu, Taizong and Shizu in 1690. It was not a permanent organization because it was dissolved after the books had been finished. The Qianlong emperor reopened the National Archives in 1765 for recompiling the Biography of national history, it made the National Archives became a permanent organization .The duty of this organization was compiling Ji(《纪》), Zhuan(《传》) , Biao（《表》）, Zhi （《志》）, Daqing Yitongzhi (《大清一统志》) and Huangqing Zouyi （《皇清奏议》）etc. The National Rulin biography is one of the national biographies which compiled by the National Archives. It’s also a biography of the scholars as the other Rulin biographies in traditional history. The compiling of the biography was effected by the tendency of organizing the national learning, which became popular in Mid- Jiaqing era. Just like the other history of Qing learning compiled by the nongovernmental historians, the National Rulin biography was also an outcome of development of the Qing learning. Never the less, the National Rulin biography was not finished in one time, its complex procedure of compiling included compiling the first draft, editing the first draft, finalizing the text and continuing the text. As a matter of fact, not like the common works at most portrays the history of Qing learning until authors’ living time. the National Rulin biography portrays a complete history of Qing learning．But the current researches on this biography are limit and repeat each other’s views. The researches in this doctoral dissertation restored the primary procedure of the compiling by study the document which is collected in the First Historical Archive in Beijing and collected works, sketchbooks, chronicles of related historians’ life. Furthermore, the dissertation studied the influences of changes of times and academic tendency via investigating the current editions of the National Rulin biography and collating these editions. The dissertation also explored the ideological and cultural history of Qing Dynasty by studying the relationship between the compiling and Qing learning. At last, the dissertation study the influence of the National Rulin biography by comparing the biography with the other scholars’ biography which in same and later ages. The sections and chapters are follows: The first section is preface, which is the introduction of research method, research gist in this dissertation. The second section is main body of the dissertation and can be separated into five chapters as follows: The 1st chapter is the study of the procedure of compiling. The author studied the tendency of organizing the history of national learning in Mid- Jiaqing era by investigating the works from Qing scholars themselves. Then, the author restored the primary procedure of the compiling by study the document which is collected in the First Archive in Beijing, collected works, sketchbooks, chronicles of related historians’ life. The 2nd chapter is the study of comparing the current editions of the National Rulin biography. The author investigated the quantity, edition etc. of these copies. The author discovered that these editions are different in the quantity of volumes, and different editions have different binding and layout. The author believes that these different editions were manuscripts which compiled by the National Archives of Qing Dynasty. The author compared these different editions and studied the transition of Qing scholars’ view on Qing learning by comparing two typical biographies, Yan Yuan(颜元) and Li Gong（李塨）。 The 3rd chapter portrays the relationship between the compiling of the first draft of the National Rulin biography and Han and song learning. The author studied the argument between Daoxue (道学)and Rulin in the compiling of the history of Ming Dynasty. The author believes that the canceling of the Daoxue biography in early Qing had great influence to the compiling of the National Rulin biography. The author studied the han-song dispute in the mid-Qing era by studied the different views on compiling the first draft of the National Rulin biography from Qing scholars ,especially from those Tongcheng (桐城)scholars. The author believes that Ruan Yuan(阮元), as the leader of the compiling of the first draft, The 4th chapter portrays the relationship between the compiling of the National Rulin biography and the emperor’s interference in historical writing. The author believes that the emperors made different style of interference in different time in Qing Dynasty. Those emperors in the early time read and made comments on the manuscript of the national history, the official historians had to edit the manuscript on the basis of the emperor’s comments. But those emperors in late time always commanded the National Archives write biographies for certain persons. These two kind of interference were based on the consideration for the consolidation of the power. The author study the influences of the emperors’ interference on the National Rulin biography by study the lives of those be ascended into the biography. The 5th chapter portrays the influence of the National Rulin biography. The first part of this chapter is a comparing study between the biography and the Guochao Hanxue Shichengji. The author disagree the current opinions on the relationship between the two scholars’ biographies, because the similarity and difference are both exist in each other. As a matter of fact, the author believes that it is hard to make a final conclusion on it. The second part of this chapter is a comparing study between the National Rulin biography and Qing Shigao(《清史稿》).The author discovered that the latter one had consulted much both in content and form. The third section is the conclusion. Reference documents, books and papers are listed in the ending of the dissertation .