四書體系的異動：明中後期「《學》《庸》一體化」現象探論

The Alteration of the Four Books System: Research on the Integration of the Great Learning and the Doctrine of the Mean in the Mid-to-Late Ming Dynasty

四書體系發展到明代中後期，其內部架構發生新的異動，主要表現是《大學》與《中庸》二書的文本走向合一化，並在此基礎上實現義理的深度融合。朱子建構的四書體系對各書定位有明確區分，認為《大學》是初學之綱領，《中庸》是成德之境界，二者雖時常並稱，但關係較為疏遠。明中期之後，陽明及其弟子打破朱子的四書壁壘，以心學宗旨融合四書，尤其是從工夫論層面將《學》《庸》理解為一個整體，為《學》《庸》一體化營造了理論氛圍。其後，陽明後學羅汝芳，及豐坊偽造的《石經大學》都提出《學》《庸》為同一人所作的觀點，成為《學》《庸》一體化在文本層面的重要突破。在其影響下，管志道從著作權層面否定了《大學》與曾子的關聯，進一步論證了《學》《庸》皆為子思所作的觀點；葛寅亮則深化了「《學》經《庸》緯」說，建構了《學》《庸》互為表裡的關係架構。明清之際的譚貞默合《大學》《中庸》為一篇，成為《學》《庸》一體化的最終形式。《學》《庸》一體化作為四書體系在明代的新調整，既是中晚明批朱風潮的集中反映和思想發展的現實需要，也是《學》《庸》親緣關係自然發展的結果，體現了經學詮釋與思想創新的交織與互動，其學術史意義值得予以充分關注。

In the mid-to-late Ming dynasty, the Four Books system underwent a key internal shift that involved the integration of the Great Learning and the Doctrine of the Mean. Although Zhu Xi had earlier grouped the two works together, he nonetheless preserved a distinction between them by treating one text as a beginner’s primer and the other as revealing the highest expression of becoming moral. After the mid-Ming, Wang Yangming and his disciples, under the influence of the philosophy of mind, disregarded Zhu’s distinction. From the perspective of cultivation practice, they viewed the two classics as a unity, which fostered the development of a theoretical basis for their integration. Later, both Wang’s follower Luo Rufang and Feng Fang, in his forged stone version of the Great Learning, argued that the two texts were composed by the same author, which represented a major textual breakthrough. Influenced by this, Guan Zhidao rejected the Great Learning’s link to Zengzi, claiming instead that both works were by Zisi. Ge Yinliang deepened the“warp and woof”theory regarding the two texts, framing them as mutually complementary. Finally, Tan Zhenmo, who lived in the late Ming and early Qing, merged them into one text, which resulted in their integrated form. This integration of the two classics, a Ming adjustment to the Four Books system, was not only a concentrated reflection of the trend of criticizing Zhu Xi and the result of a practical need for intellectual development; it was also a consequence of the natural evolution of the inherent relational affinity between them. It embodied the intertwining and interaction of classical exegesis and intellectual innovation, and its significance in the history of scholarship deserves our full attention.