理學的桐城、文學的桐城──方宗誠及其學友與十九世紀的學術傳統建構

Neo-Confucianist Tongcheng, Literary Tongcheng: Fang Zongcheng’s Circles and the Construction of Intellectual Tradition in Nineteenth-Century China

清代桐城因古文而聞名。桐城古文所倡導的「義理」，一般多不證自明地與程朱理學畫上等號。然而，十九世紀的桐城一地，程朱理學與文學間出現明顯的張力，而學界對此仍缺乏進一步的梳理與討論。本文將指出，桐城派內部作為「道」的程朱理學，以及作為「文」的文章寫作技巧之間的潛在張力，早已經存在於方苞、劉大櫆、姚鼐及其弟子們的言行之中，而十九世紀明道救世的需求更加劇了道與文的衝突。桐城蘇惇元、戴鈞衡與方宗誠等桐城派傳人，有意識地凸顯桐城程朱理學的一面，因此使得理學與文學、理學家與文士之間的張力浮上檯面。他們在敘述桐城學術發展，以及編纂桐城先賢著作與年譜時，刻意抬高理學並壓抑文學的獨立性。到了十九世紀末期，儘管理學逐漸褪去影響力，但這股張力並未消失。桐城後人吳汝綸等人明白指出程朱義理與文章寫作之間的拉扯，並以平等的眼光看待兩者，試圖讓文學掙脫理學的枷鎖。透過描繪十九世紀理學與文學間如蹺蹺板般的關係，本文將指出桐城士人如何面對、安排與協調他們所繼承的學術傳統，並為清代學術思想史提供一個在「漢∕宋」（考據∕義理）與「傳統∕現代」（新∕舊）之外，理學與文學（義理∕詞章）的研究角度。

Revolving around a group of scholars in nineteenth-century Tongcheng, Anhui province, the present article discusses tensions between Cheng-Zhu Neo-Confucianism and theories of literature as evidenced in their writings. During the Qing dynasty, the Tongcheng School was renowned for its ancient prose theory and achievements in Neo-Confucianism, largely achieving a delicate balance between Cheng-Zhu thought and literary creation. The balance between the two, however, proved difficult to maintain. Hidden tensions among early Tongcheng scholars, which would surface as evidenced by Fang Zongcheng方宗誠(1818–1888), Su Dunyuan蘇惇元(1801–1857), and Dai Junheng戴鈞衡(1814–1855) all supporting Cheng-Zhu Neo-Confucianism, were further exacerbated by the political and social crises of the nineteenth century. In describing the academic developments of the Tongcheng School and in compiling the writings and chronicles of related scholars, they deliberately elevated Cheng-Zhu Neo-Confucianism and suppressed the independence of literature. By the end of the nineteenth century, despite a gradual fading of the influence of Cheng-Zhu thought, such tensions had not yet dissipated. Intellectual descendants such as Wu Rulun吳汝綸(1840–1903) pointed to these tensions but attempted to view both traditions in an equal light to free literature from the shackles of Cheng-Zhu Neo-Confucianism. By describing the delicate relationship between the two, this article shows how Tongcheng scholars confronted, arranged, and reconciled the inherent tensions in the academic resources they had inherited. It also provides alternative clues to the intellectual history of the Qing dynasty beyond the“Han vs. Song”and the“tradition vs. modernity”binaries by exploring the relations between philosophical meaning and literary creation.