清史《儒林传》纂修历时百年，本文关注晚清光绪至民国初年的纂修情况，立足于现有研究尚未充分注意的台北故宫博物院藏清国史馆与民国清史馆《儒林传》档案，结合其他相关文献史料，研究内容主要包括三个方面。第一，梳理晚清民国清史《儒林传》的纂修历程与稿本情况。光绪七年（1881年）清国史馆续修《儒林传》，缪荃孙是主要纂修者，至光绪十四年（1888年）纂成《儒林传》上下两卷。光绪续修《儒林传》稿本情况历来并不明晰，本文考证现存主要有上海图书馆藏绿格抄本《儒林传》以及台北故宫博物院所藏一批散见稿本。此后清国史馆对光绪续修《儒林传》进行了数次改修与增删，主要参与者有叶昌炽、恽毓鼎、陈伯陶，成台北故宫博物院三十四卷本《儒林传》与七十三卷本《儒林传》两部汇编稿本。1914年清史馆开，缪荃孙为总纂，纂成有《儒学传》。之后清史馆又对《儒学传》进行了改修工作，有马其昶所纂稿本。最终，《清史稿·儒林传》以缪荃孙《儒学传》为底本略作改动而成。第二，着重考察光绪续修《儒林传》的清学史论述。光绪续修《儒林传》在清史《儒林传》中具有承上启下的意义，其采取上下分卷的传记结构，“分派”“分经”记述清代宋学与汉学学人脉络。上卷所记清代理学发展呈现出渐衰之势，下卷则全面详尽记述清代汉学各经治学成就。下卷并不以经今古文之争的视角记述清代《公羊》《谷梁》之学，而是重在表彰清代经学体系在乾嘉之后不断发展完备，足以比肩两汉学术。以地域视角来看，光绪续修《儒林传》记述偏重于江苏，但同时广东、贵州等省首次有学人进入《儒林》。下卷重点记述常州学人的经学与事功，对庄存与、刘逢禄等人学术传承的书写突出治经广博与经学的实际关怀，不同于清末梁启超等所谓晚清今文《公羊》之学的建构。第三，探讨不同时期清史《儒林传》清学史论述的延续与变化。缪荃孙清史馆《儒学传》较大程度延续了光绪续修《儒林传》旧稿的基本清学史论述体系，同时又有新的传记内容呈现。《儒学传》已非表彰本朝学术的“国史”，而是总结前朝历史的“清史”。性质的转变呈现出清学史论述新的意涵，反映缪荃孙对于时势的体认与因应，以及对于清代思想学术历史的评价与思考。缪荃孙提出“新学与旧学竞”的观点，《儒学传》总体采取维护“旧学”立场，对“新学”加以排斥与批判。

Within the hundred-year-long process of editing the Biographies of Confucian Scholars in Qing History, this dissertation focuses on editing from the Guangxu period through the Republican Era. Based on hitherto underutilized archival versions of the Biographies from the Qing Official History Institute and Republican Qing History Institute held in the Taipei Palace Museum, in conjunction with other related materials, it discusses three dimensions of the Biographies.First, the dissertation organizes the late Qing and Republican drafts of the Biographies and the progress of their editing. When the Qing Official History Institute began revising the Biographies in 1881, Miao Quansun served as the main editor. By 1888, the two volumes of the Biographies had been completed. Two of these Guangxu editions are extant: a “green grid” hand-copied version held in the Shanghai Library and a scattered draft version held in the Taipei Palace Museum. After this, the Qing Official History Institute continued to revise the Biographies. The primary participants in this process were Ye Changchi, Yun Yuding, and Chen Botao. They compiled a 34 juan edition of the Biographies held in the Taipei Palace Museum and a 73 juan compiled draft edition. When the Republican Qing History Institute was opened in 1914, with Miao Quansun as General Editor, it compiled another Biographies of Confucian Scholars. After this, the office continued to revise this version of the Biographies; there is an extant draft version edited by Ma Qichang. The final version of the Biographies in the Draft Qing History was based upon the Biographies edited by Miao Quansun.Second, the dissertation analyses the description of the history of scholarship in the Guangxu-era Biographies. The Guangxu-era Biographies is separated into two juan, “by schools” and “by classic,” which respectively describe the Han learning and Song learning scholars in the Qing. The first juan describes the gradual waning of Song learning in the Qing, and the second juan describes in detail the successes of Han learning in the Qing. The second juan does not separate Qing studies of the Gongyang and Guliang commentaries according to the Old Text and New Text interpretations. Instead, it emphasizes the completeness of the Qing classical tradition, arguing that it can be compared favorably with Han Dynasty scholarship. From a geographic perspective, the Guangxu edition emphasizes Jiangsu, but also includes scholars from Guangdong and Guizhou in the Biographies of Confucian Scholars for the first time. The second juan focuses on the classicism and accomplishments of scholars from Changzhou. In writing about Zhuang Cunyu, Liu Fenglu and their compatriots, it focuses on the breadth of their classical inquiries and their pragmatic goals – an emphasis different from that of the Liang Qichao, who focused on the late Qing New Text Gongyang school.Third, the dissertation discusses how the Biographies’ discussion of the history of scholarship evolved and changed across different versions. Miao Quansun’s Biographies in Republican Era to a large extent inherited the basic interpretations established in the Guangxu Biographies’ old draft, while at the same time adding new biographical information. The Biographies moved from showcasing “our august dynasty’s National History” in favor of summarizing the now ended dynasty’s “Qing History”. This change in character revealed the changing implications of the narrative of the history of scholarship, while also reflecting Miao Quansun’s grasp of and response to the changing times, as well as his evaluation and thinking about the history of Qing’s scholarship. Miao raised the idea of “new scholarship competing with the old,” and in general the Biographies critique and exclude the new in favor of the old.