打破道統．重建學統－清代學術思想史的一個新觀察

欲探討近代中國知識轉型，傳統學術在近四百年間的變化是不可或缺的一端，因此對清代學術進行重新詮釋成為必要。本文試著從明清學術轉型與傳統學術重整的角度，再次觀察清代學術──尤其是作為清代學術中堅的乾嘉學術──提出一個新觀點，暫名之為：打破道統．重建學統。一則破除學界以考證學視清學的偏狹觀點，一則修正以經世解清學所無法含括之清儒純學術的興趣和貢獻。最要則在指出清儒開發並反思傳統學術資源所展現的宏闊知識場域，並專門知識獨立之萌芽。本文先從三個制度性的論點切入，並闡述其學術意義：（一）孔廟改制。說明清初以降學術界如何致力於令秦漢等傳經之儒重回孔廟。其中最切要的莫過於鄭玄復祀，同時引發學界對孔門弟子、秦漢學脈等的細瑣考證與學譜重編。（二）揭示乾嘉漢學界議立周公、伏生、鄭玄為五經博士此一事件之始末、艱辛、成敗，並詳析此舉所蘊含的重大學術轉型意義。包括：章句、典制之學、說文之學的興起，為專門漢學治學方法張本，異幟於「義理先行」的道學。（三）指出學術界祀統別立學統重建此一事實。嘉慶時，阮元、孫星衍在詁經精舍特立「許慎、鄭玄祠」，異於眾書院；到光緒間，俞樾、王舟瑤更踵事前志，立「許慎、鄭玄從祀制」，考訂由漢至清傳經之儒的譜系，並有意地模仿孔廟從祀制，從祀於「許、鄭祠」；各地尊經閣紛紛建立，甚至仿孔誕為鄭玄慶冥壽，儼然於官學之外另立學統。清儒此一學統重建工程的內涵極之豐富，至少可從三方面觀察：1.當清帝自居堯舜，集道統、治統、正統於一身時，學術界已在政學合一的意識形態之外，建立了獨立意義的學統，標幟「道無統，道寓於學」。此一有意識的學術運動要義又有二：2.開發出傳統學街的豐沛資源，形構出多樣性的知識；3.對傳統學術作出內容與價值的重估。

關鍵字

清代學術；阮元學圈；詁經精舍；許慎鄭玄祠

並列摘要

Any effort to understand the transformation of knowledge in modem China must take into account the changes in traditional scholarship over the past four centuries. There is thus a need for a new examination of Qing scholarship, and this article suggests a new perspective on the transformation of Ming-Qing scholarship and the reintegration of traditional learning-especially in regard to the core of Qing scholarship, the evidential studies movement of the Qianlong and Jiaqing reign periods . This new perspective might be tentatively summed up as ＂the critique of the 'orthodox transmission' of Neo-Confucianism and the re-formation of the Confucian scholarly transmission＂-which invoked a more inclusive view of true Confucianism. We need, first, to break out of the narrow view of Qing scholars as limited to evidential studies, and second, to revise the emphasis on Qing statecraft that ignores the pure scholarship of Qing Confucians. More importantly, Qing Confucians enlarged the entire field of knowledge as they developed and reflected on traditional scholarship, and the period saw the start of the autonomy of particular branches of knowledge. This article broaches the topic through an examination of three institutions and their significance for Qing scholarship. First, the reform of the Confucian Temple. How did the academic community starting in the early Qing work to reinstall classical scholars of the earlier tradition into the Temple? The key figure reinstalled in the Temple was Zheng Xuan, while Qing scholars also thoroughly researched specific Confucian followers and the various schools of Confucianism since the Qin-Han in a reworking of scholarly genealogies. Second, the efforts of the Han Learning school in the Qianlong and Jiaqing periods to establish the Duke of Zhou, Fu Sheng, and Zheng Xuan as ＂Erudites of the Five Classics＂ (五經博士). These efforts proved to be of great significance to changes in scholarship, including a specialized methodology of the Han Learning school as seen in the rise of the analyses of historical texts, institutions, and the Shuowen dictionary-as opposed to the Neo-Confucian school's emphasis on ＂morality and principle.＂ And third, sacrifices marked a new sense of the ＂scholarly transmission＂ in academic circles. The Gujing Academy established a Temple to Xu Shen and Zheng Xuan in the Jiaqing period, not found in other academies at the time, but the idea had spread widely by the Guangxu period, when new genealogies defined the transmission of the classics from the Han to the Qing, and sacrifices to Xu and Zheng followed the form of Confucian Temple sacrifices. Halls for Respecting the Classics were founded in many localities, and the anniversary of Zheng Xuan's birthday was even celebrated like that of Confucius. The effects of Confucian scholars to rework the scholarly transmission-at a time when the Qing emperors claimed to fill the position of Yao and Shun and to personally manifest the transmission of the Way and of legitimate rulership-demonstrate that scholarly circles were already constructing an autonomous sense of scholarly transmission outside of the traditional ideology that linked politics and learning. ＂Not the orthodox transmission of the Way but finding the Way in learning＂ was the key to their understanding. This self-aware academic movement had two further features: first, we can see that Qing Confucians greatly developed the resources of traditional scholarship, thus creating more multifaceted forms of knowledge; and second, they were reevaluating the content and value of traditional scholarship.