The Official Writing of Dynastic History in the Qianlong Reign
|關鍵字:||乾隆皇帝;官修國史;國史館;出旗政策;開國史重整;歷史記憶;Qianlong Emperor;Official writing of history;dynastic history;Bureau of Dynastic History;Manchu founding history||公開日期:||2016||摘要:||本論文將官方修史視為一種會受現實政治影響的文化政策，尤其乾隆朝皇權最為集中，研究乾隆朝的官修國史，不只能藉此分析乾隆皇帝如何定義清帝國，也能窺探他最為關心的現實政治問題。 滿洲政權在入關前已發展出重視歷史書寫的傳統，滿洲統治者也很早就注意到操作官方歷史書寫，就等於掌握統治正當性。從皇太極、順治到康熙初年，清初的幾次官方修史計畫，都反映政治的角力鬥爭。此外，清初官制的發展與確立，更直接影響官修史書的運作。清入關前曾經出現修史的專責機構，但是康熙皇帝親政以後，再次改變了中央官制，分散於多元層級的史館制度出現，國史館也是在這樣的背景下產生。 乾隆前期的官修國史反映乾隆皇帝所欲呈現的帝國意象，其項目包括紀傳體國史和收錄於《四庫全書》的政書類與地理類官修國史。乾隆朝前期的紀傳體國史編修，突破了康、雍兩朝僅重視開國功臣列傳的侷限，還修成五朝《本紀》、續修《宗室王公大臣列傳》，以及完成部分十四種《志》。就政書類來看，乾隆皇帝將前一時期未完成的史書修完，並透過進呈御覽慣例的規範化，對官修史書的項目、內容、體例等，有更整體的掌握。地理類的官修國史特別能反映乾隆二十年代的西北軍事行動。在幾次的戰爭中，乾隆皇帝都在前線戰事尚未明朗之時，即命前線秘密繪圖，或派繪圖官前往製圖，其政治意涵不容忽視。 乾隆後期的官修國史以重開國史館為界，其項目包含紀傳體國史和開國史重整活動。相較於前一階段，乾隆皇帝改以預先議定纂修凡例，確保臣工的評價準繩可以更符合皇帝的統治利益。不過，三十年（1765）重開國史館時，乾隆皇帝尚未有利用官修國史來宣傳特定思想的完整藍圖；他是在閱覽館臣上呈的稿本中，不斷扭轉易代史的論述，並配合三十年代晚期開始的禁燬書運動，將易代史的論述全部收歸官方。至於乾隆三十年代晚期的開國史重整計畫，前輩學者多將之解釋為乾隆皇帝希望藉此喚醒滿人的傳統精神，以對抗漢化危機。然而，乾隆朝的出旗政策不僅改變了八旗內部的族群成份，更直接挑戰了滿人的身分認同。相對於在紀傳體國史中強調清政權「得天命」之正統，開國史重整反而大書特書太祖、太宗於政權草創時「盡人事」的部分，尤其深刻描述眾貝子、貝勒與太祖、太宗齊心同力，創建帝基的經過。乾隆朝後期的開國史重整計畫，就是透過後設的眼光，不斷去發明滿人的悠久歷史，滿人的一體認同，甚至將列入開國王公功績表傳的標準不斷擴大，就是要讓最大基數的滿人都能有與滿洲政權共存亡的認同。 本論文強調清代官方修史會受現實政治的高度影響，尤其國史涉及帝王操控本國史的歷史記憶與評價，更是具有高度的政治敏感性。乾隆朝時皇權高度發展，與清朝官修國史的蓬勃發展不是偶然，乾隆皇帝透過前期對官修國史編纂的摸索，在重開國史館以後，高度干預官修國史的編纂，直接創造新的易代史論述和滿洲歷史記憶，雙管齊下以保護滿洲的統治利益。
This paper sees the official writing of history as a cultural policy, which tends to be affected by the realpolitik per se. The imperial power in the reign of Qianlong had been centralized and increased to the fullest. By analyzing the official writing of dynastic history in the Qianlong reign, not only can we comprehend how Qianlong defined the Qing dynasty, but we can also dig into the political issues he concerned about. The Manchu regime had developed its own way of historical writing before the conquest, and the Manchu princes had acknowledged the relation between manipulating the official writing of history and predominating ruling legitimacy. From Hong Taiji to Kangxi Emperor, the official writing of history reflected the political combats between several Manchu princes in early Qing. In addition, the establishment of bureaucracy in early Qing also impacted directly on the operation of the official writing of history. Before the conquest, there was once a specialized institution responsible solely for the official writing of history. After Kangxi Emperor reinstated his power in the court, he transformed the central bureaucratic institutions once again, marking the beginning of Bureaus of Historiography which was governed by different institutions. This incident was also the background of the founding of Dynastic Bureau of Historiography (DBH) in Qing dynasty. The official writing of dynastic history in the reign of Qianlong can be divided into two stages. The first stage reflected the imperial image the emperor wished to display. The compiling activities including the standard history, as well as political and geographical writings of the Qing dynasty- which were included in Siku Quanshu (The Complete Library of the Four Treasuries). The second stage was marked by the re-establishment of DBH in 1765. Comparing to the previous stage, Qianlong interfered even more directly, so that he could ensure the evaluation of the Qing subjects would meet the interests of his empire. However, Qianlong did not have a clear blueprint to use the cultural policy as a mean to propagate certain ideas in 1765; he fortified the official discourse of the Ming-Qing transition in the process of reading the drafts that the official historiographers delivered. Along with the climax of burning of books and modification of texts in 1770s, Qianlong tried to ban all private historical writings of Ming-Qing transition, and made the official discourse the only memory that all subjects should remember. At the same time, DBH also underwent other compiling activities, with the re-writing of the founding history of Manchu regime being of most significance. In this paper, I try to argue that the reason Qianlong gave order to re-write the founding history of Manchu was not because he thought the root of the Manchu rule was frightened by the loss of Manchuness into the Hanness of the Manchus, but because he witnessed the loss of Manchu identity of the Manchus during the reform of the banner system: the Manchus were reluctant to move from the capital to the garrison. Unlike stressing the legitimacy of the Qing empire in the biographies writings, Qianlong laid most emphasis on depicting the epic stories of Nurhaci, Hong Taiji and other imperial members before the conquest. In this way, Qianlong successfully combined the thrive of the Manchu identity with the prosper of the Manchu regime. In this dissertation, the official writing of history is concerned as a cultural policy, which is highly affected by realpolitik. With the involvement of the imperial control of the historical writing and memory, the official writing of dynastic history becomes especially politically sensitive. The relation between the development of the imperial power in the Qianlong reign and the flourish of the official writing of history is self-evident. After his experience of interfering with the official writing of history in the first stage, Qianlong furthered the intervention into creating the new discourse on Ming-Qing transition and the memory of the Manchus, working both lines to protect the interests of the Qing empire.
在 IR 系統中的文件，除了特別指名其著作權條款之外，均受到著作權保護，並且保留所有的權利。