氣節與道脈之間——東林祠祀爭議與清初士風之轉折

In the Name of Donglin: Partisanship, Morality and Academic Genealogy in the Ming-Qing Transition

明末之東林講學，向以激揚氣節為世所知。然而在康熙年間，以「氣節」著稱的左光斗、周順昌等東林黨人是否應「從祀」於東林書院之道南祠，卻引發了無錫當地學者和兩任江寧巡撫湯斌、宋犖之間的爭議。書院祀典何以會受到官府的特別關注？祭祀之中隱含了怎樣的思想背景？本文將清理明清之際道南祠祀的發展歷程，考察地方社會、官府權力、學術思想、歷史記憶諸因素之互動，討論兩種對「東林」精神的不同詮釋，即積極應世的「氣節」說與強調學術純粹性的「道脈」說，如何在清初此消彼長。本文認為，東林祠祀之爭議，一方面顯現了地方官員對士人階層的管控，另一方面，也有思想上的理路：相對於明人「氣節發於理學」之說，清初強調「人品自人品，學術自學術」，將理學與氣節分而言之。這一思想轉折在官方的鼓勵下，成為明清之間士人文化的一大變化。

The Donglin faction’s 東林黨 anti-eunuch campaign has long been considered a key factor in understanding late Ming politics and the collapse of the dynasty. Existing studies, however, seldom discuss the development of the Donglin Academy itself. This article provides a historical account of the early Qing (1644-1722) debates over the academy’s pantheon and describes in detail the intellectual background. I demonstrate that, while some local intellectuals attempted to worship the martyrs of the anti-eunuch movement, provincial governors such as Tang Bin 湯斌 and Song Luo 宋犖 insisted on a “purity of academic genealogy,” allowing only Neo-Confucian scholars to be listed in the pantheon. I aim to show that conflict and compromise between intellectuals and political authorities, along with reflection on the cultural crisis of the late Ming, gradually shaped the interests of Qing scholars who were otherwise inclined to restrict themselves to purely academic work. This contrasts with their late-Ming predecessors, who were enthusiastic about pursuing the political implications of their learning