十九世紀上半葉清朝士人的東北論述

近三百多年來東北形象的變化，從清朝龍興之地到民國人民心中失土的重要象徵，或可以「從聖地到失土」一語概括。倘以後見之明觀之，十九世紀上半葉，即嘉道兩朝，清朝諸帝與士人對東北逐漸喪失主導力、失語已有萌兆。因東北地區係清朝龍興之地，故自清廷入關伊始便蒙上一層神秘面紗。但東北形象卻一直呈現著多重定位：既是故土、帝鄉／根本重地，也是流放罪犯之所／邊境地域。本文嘗試透過隨扈東巡、遣戍流人、私纂志書與士人著作等四大面向，聚焦嘉道兩朝士人文字，探問滿、漢士人如何記述、描繪東北地域的樣貌及其相應態度。綜合相關史料可知，即便時序已然進入嘉道時期，但東北相關記述的視野仍凝結在康乾之際，隨扈記述或地方志書文字皆有獵奇意味，且無不交相讚譽東北的良風美俗。倘若對照朝鮮燕行使的文字和視角，更可凸顯清中葉士人仍舊依循清初以降的敘述主軸，未有太多變化。清中葉士人以「不變」的東北論述，對應瞬息「萬變」的東北亞國際局勢，已讓清朝失去東北整體戰略先機。

The change in the image of northeast China over the past three hundred years is from the birthplace of Qing dynasty to an important symbol of lost land in the hearts of the people of R.O.C. It could also be summed up in the phrase“from holy land to lost land.”If you look at it with hindsight bias, in the first half of the 19th century, the emperors and literati of the Qing dynasty gradually lost their dominance in northeast China. Because the northeast region is the birthplace of Qing dynasty, it has been covered with a veil of mystery since 1644. However, the image of northeast China has always shown multiple positionings: it is not only the hometown of emperors, but also the place where criminals were exiled. How to understand and clarify such a description is an important issue that cannot be avoided, and only by accurately grasping the relevant discourses can we further explore the development of the second half of the 19th century. From the Qianlong period onwards, whether Manchu or Han rarely had the opportunity to go to the northeast region, which became a major challenge to inquire about the theories of the northeast by the literati of Jiaqing and Daoguang periods. This article attempts to focus on the writings of literati in Jiaqing and Daoguang periods through the four major aspects of following the east tour, dispatching exiles, privately compiling chorographies and literati’s writings, and inquiring how Manchu and Han literati described the northeast region and its corresponding attitude. Under the deliberate operation of emperors, even in Jiaqing and Daoguang periods, the vision of related records is still condensed in Kangxi and Qianlong periods. If we compare the records and perspectives used by Joseon’s diplomatic envoys, it could be highlighted that the literati in mid-Qing period still followed the main axis of narrative from early Qing period, without much change. Literati in mid-Qing period used unchanged northeast theories to respond to the ever-changing international situation in northeast Asia, which made emperors lose the overall strategic opportunity for confronting northeast China.