《四庫全書總目》對宋、元之際「《尚書》學」的評述

An Evaluation on the Remarks of General Catalogue of Imperial Collection of Four Division (四庫全書總目提要) to the Studies of Book of Record (尚書) in the Period of Song (宋) and Yuan (元)

民國以來，對宋、元之際《尚書》學的評述，大多以《四庫全書總目》（以下簡稱《總目》）的說法作為依據。然而，《總目》雖在〈凡例〉中強調漢、宋持平的立場，其實際表現卻是重漢學而輕宋學，無法真正持平地評論宋學的著作。其對宋元之際《尚書》學的評述，亦有相同的問題。本論文考察蔡沈《書集傳》相關著作的提要，發現《總目》傾向於將不守《書集傳》一家之言，特別是以考據的方式糾正《書集傳》的著作，歸入正式的目錄；而將宗《書集傳》或未以考據的方式駁《書集傳》的著作，歸入「存目」。又根據《總目》相關材料的對比，指出乾隆四十一年前後，《總目》的編者曾以漢學的立場，對《尚書》類提要的內容作了調整：強調所提要著作的考據成就，而避免涉及義理的問題。最後經由實際的舉證，指出《總目》對宋元之際《尚書》學的評述，不可輕信。

Reviewing the comments to the studies of Book of Record within the period of Song and Yuan Dynasty, we would find that the comments are basically base on the point of view of General Catalogue of Imperial Collection of Four Division (I will name the book in short as The General Catalogue after this line). Although The General Catalogue emphasized that the academic standard in the studies on the canons of Confucius should be treated as equal, we can still find that it is in fact valued higher in the academic standard in Han than in Song. The same attitude is also applied while The General Catalogue evaluates the studies of Book of Record within the period of Song and Yuan. The paper examined the abstract of related works of Cai Shen's (蔡沈) Collection of works on the Book of Record, and found that it classified the works that are not follow the point of view of Collection of works on the Book of Record and those that making corrections to it by means of texture research into the formal catalogue. On the other hand, the editors of The General Catalogue refuted that some of the contents have failed to stand after the texture research or the works in the collection is standing on the ground of the collection by placing them into The Brief Catalogue. By comparing the related data, we would like to point out that during the time in the 41st year of Qian Long (乾隆四十一年) , the editors of The General Catalogue had stood on the ground of Hanology(漢學) to readjust the content in the category of the Book of Record in order to emphasis the importance of texture research and to avoid the discussion on the topic of ethics. The conclusion of this paper is that through substantial evidence, we need to reconsider the remarks of The General Catalogue to the Studies of Book of Record in the Period of Song and Yuan.