- 學位論文
「漢學」之形成與「宋學」之重構： 南宋以降至清乾嘉之際學術史著作流變之考察
The Formation of “Han Xue” and the Reconstruct of “Song Xue”: Survey on the Formation, the Development and the Vicissitude of the Academic History of the Neo-Confucian Li Ideology from South Song Dynasty to Qianlong-Jiaqing Era in Qing Dynasty
摘要
本論文之問題意識，乃圍繞於下列二項而展開：第一，「漢、宋之爭」於研究上所產生困境之反省。第二，學術史著作於研究上所存在缺憾之重新檢討。 以第一項之反省而言，此類型之相關研究，有以下三大困境：第一，「漢學」、「宋學」兩詞彙，起始即無明確之定義。因此，學者使用兩詞彙進行學術討論時，往往以自身所預設之內涵，進行學術對話，於是彼此之論述，既缺乏共同之平台，而所展開之討論，亦將缺乏交集。第二，相關研究多集中於漢、宋之爭形成以後，然作為討論漢、宋之爭最為基礎之「漢學」、「宋學」詞彙，起始即無明確之定義，而學者又使用定義不明之詞彙，進行學術對話，遂將導致漢、宋之爭相關研究，將陷入各是其所是，非其所非之困境。第三，研究取材既不能「辨章學術，考鏡源流」，而使用之文獻，亦不外於《漢學師承記》、《宋學淵源記》、《漢學商兌》、《擬國史儒林傳稿》等書。然此類相關文獻，皆為漢、宋之爭形成後，所編纂而成之學術史著作，若藉由作此類相關文獻進行研究，則所獲得之學術成果，亦將侷限於漢、宋之爭形成以後，種種既定之觀念。 基於上述三大困境，本論文嘗試立足於乾嘉之際，漢、宋之爭形成此一關鍵階段，並嘗試轉移現今學界以下探方式，研究漢、宋之爭既有之視野，改以上溯方式，聚焦於南宋以降至清乾嘉時期之學術史著作。藉由學術史著作流變之考察，觀察其所建構之宋學概念，並與漢、宋之爭形成後，於漢學視野下所重構而成之宋學概念，進行分析與比較，以獲得學界所未曾提出之學術成果。 以第二項之檢討而言，此類型之相關研究，有以下四大缺憾：第一，學術史著可反映理學社群之輪廓、師承授受之史料，以及理學與地域上之關係等等，然由於缺乏關注，遂導致此類重要學術議題，未能展開深入之研究。第二，學術史著作是以理學社群作為收錄之對象，而於編纂過程中，亦直接反映編纂者之宋學概念。然由於學術史著作之研究過於匱乏，遂導致此一具有源遠流長特質之宋學概念，不僅不為學界所知，同時亦未能為學界所善加利用。第三，學術史著作編纂之目的，最重要者在於藉由學脈之編纂，用以承載其道統觀。然由於學術史著作研究之匱乏，遂導致研究道統之學者，極少能利用此一類型之資料，於是所獲得之學術成果，亦將有其侷限。第四，學術史著作代表之典範，為黃宗羲之《明儒學案》，同時亦為學案體體裁之代表。然而，由於研究之不足，遂導致學術史著作體例本身之形成、發展與變化，未能有一系統性之研究成果出現。至於「學案體」與學術史著作之具體關係為何，以及學術史著作如何往學案體發展等相關議題，亦皆處於曖昧不明之狀態。 漢、宋之爭既然有上述三大研究困境，而學術史著作於研究上，亦有上述之四大缺憾，因此本論文嘗試綰合兩者作為問題意識，並奠基於乾嘉之際「漢、宋之爭」形成之重要階段，扭下探而為上溯，並藉由學術史著作流變之考察，進而解決兩者於研究上之困境與遺憾。 解決本論文問題意識之研究步驟與方法，則以下列三條主軸進行： 第一條主軸：宋學概念建構與流變之考察。 第二條主軸：學術史著作體例源流與變革之考察。 第三條主軸：道統論述與建構之考察。 藉由上述三條主軸之考察，及其所獲得之學術成果，將能跳脫以往漢、宋之爭於研究上之種種侷限。
並列摘要
The problematics for this dissertation focus on the following: first, “Han Song Zhi Zheng” (“the Great Debate between ‘Han Xue’ and ‘Song Xue’”, the controversies over the superiority in various academic topics in “Han Xue” and “Song Xue”) and the reflections on the difficulties it has brought to the academia. Second, the re-examination on the lack of Li Ideology researches in the academia. For the former, there are three major difficulties seen in this survey. First of all, the clear definitions of “Han Xue” and “Song Xue” have been lacking. Therefore, when it comes to the discussions of these two terms, scholars have the tendencies to fulfil the terms with their own presumptions, which yields little common ground for further discussion and debate. Second, since there are no clear definitions of the terms, and most researches focus on the phenomenon of “Han Song Zhi Zheng”, the academic dialogues seem arbitrary and often ambiguous, yet this has seldom come to the attention in the discussions on this particular topic, leaving numerous blind spots. Third, the researched materials so far have been limited and confined to works that came after the Great Debate in Qing Dynasty such as Han Xue Shi Cheng Ji, Song Zue Yuan Yuan Ji, Han Xue Shang Dui, Ni Guo Shi Ru Lin Chuan Gao, works that cannot and do not “Bian Zhang Xue Shu and Kao Jing Yuan Liu” (track the formation, development, and vicissitude of certain ideology or school by chronologically further exploring the academic works). The research result, accordingly, could not exceed the existent framework of the Great Debate. In order to address to these three difficulties, this dissertation attempts to base the argument on the crucial stage when “the Great Debate” in Qianlong-Jiaqing era in Qing Dynasty, and chronologically dates the academic works back to the time between South Song Dynasty and the Qianlong-Jiaqing era, in order to investigate the formation, development and its vicissitude. The idea of “Song Xue” constructed in the meantime is compared with the “Song Xue” flourished after the reconstruct of “Han Xue” in the Great Debate, in order to gain the research result never raised in the academia before. The latter sees the four major problems left to be desired. First, the academic history of Li Ideology can reflect the outline of the academic community, the transmission of knowledge from teachers to disciples, and the interrelation between the formation of the knowledge and its geography. Due to the lack of such academic attentions, however, these significant topics are left untreated. Second, the construct of academic history of the Li Ideology reflects the core value in the academic circle of the community, and the process of collection and compilation can mirror the ideas of “Song Xue” in the minds of the editors. Nonetheless, the lack of research on the academic history of Li ideology leaves the well-established idea of “Song Xue” little known and little used. Third, the compilation of the academic history of Li ideology is to serve the purpose of presenting the concept of “Dao Tong” (Confucian Orthodoxy) in a more tangible way. But unfortunately, the lack of the academic history of Li ideology results in the fact that the researchers working on the concept of “Dao Tong” are unable to make full advantage of such materials, which confines their research outcomes. Fourth, the most iconic work that can best represent the academic history of Li ideology is Ming Ru Xue An by Ming scholar Huang Zong Xi. The publication is also the best example of “Xue An Ti” (“the Case Study Style”, a style that deals with the biography of authors and then their works). Again, the lack of the academic history of Li ideology bears no systematic thinking of this particular style, leaving the relationship and the development between the ideology and the style obscure and indistinct. This dissertation is thus a fruitful treatise on the aforementioned problematics, and to address to the questions as previously mentioned. The methodology is to address to three theses: first, the survey on the construct and development of the concept of “Song Xue”; second, the examination on the academic history of the Li ideology and its relation to “Xue An Ti”; third, the exploration of the discourse and the construct of the concept of “Dao Tong”. This is a contribution to exceed the preceding research limitations of “the Great Debate of ‘Han Xue’ and ‘Song Xue’”.