中國古代法典及其事例之自動化整合——以乾隆朝《大清會典》為例

Abstract

大清會典為清代官方編修的政書，記載了清代的政府體制與各項典章制度，是研究清代制度史的重要文獻。其中所收，無論是綱要性質的「典」還是記載制度沿革的「例」皆具有豐富的研究價值。然而，乾隆朝以後將會典內容依典例性質分別成書，卻使得研究者無法直接查閱同一制度的典與例，即使同時翻閱兩書，也往往受限於兩書編排上的差異，而難以有效率的找出具關聯性的內容。因此本研究嘗試透過資訊技術的輔助，自動化整合典與例這兩種不同性質的記錄。 本研究以乾隆朝編纂的《欽定大清會典》及《欽定大清會典則例》為例，首先分析其編寫格式，並依此整理兩書所收內容。除了將敘述各項制度的文字分割開、依照原書劃分的部門及職掌分門別類之外，則例的部分亦自動擷取其時間資訊。書中的編排另有一特定規則，能將所述內容相近的制度辨別出來。此一層關係雖不若明確書寫的分類般清晰可見，但對各制度的內容劃分仍是極具重要性。因此我們將各條目依此編排特性歸類，每種性質相似的內容稱為一個「主題」。 接下來，我們比對會典與則例之間的關係。本研究分別從分類、主題、條目等三個不同層面切入，比較會典與則例在編排及文字敘述上的同異處，再整合這三個層面的比較結果，將兩者間相關的條目比對出來。對照的結果，我們發現會典與則例之間並沒有完整的對應關係，不僅有許多制度規定僅在會典或則例的其中一書中出現，甚至在基本的分類層面上，兩書的劃分方式亦有所不同。 本研究共在3695筆會典條目與25150筆則例條目之間，找出13890組對應關係。將這些對應結果輔以網頁呈現，研究者便能快速地檢索並參照兩書內容。除此之外，全面性的比較兩書的分類、主題、內文等不同層面，亦能幫助研究者綜覽會典與則例的編排與分類方式，對兩書的編撰原則做進一步的分析與探討。

Daqing Huidian (大清會典, the Records of Laws and Systems of the Qing Dynasty) is an important record produced by the government of Qing. It contains two parts, the statutes, which are the set of laws and rules of governance, and the precedents, which indicate how the laws were carried out in actual governance. Both the statutes and the precedents recorded in these books are important materials for research on the laws and governance of the Qing dynasty. In the earlier compilations, the statutes and precedents were kept in the same book. As the reign of Qing progressed, however, they were divided into two different books due both to the increase in size and to the differences in their purposes and nature. In this thesis we try to use information technologies to rebuild the relationships between statutes and precedents. We take the third edition of the Daqing Huidian, compiled during the reign of Qianlong, as a case study. It includes two books: QinDingDaQingHuiDian (欽定大清會典) and QinDingDaQingHuiDianZeLi (欽定大清會典則例). While the former one is a collection of the statutes, the latter documents all the precedents. We first analyze the structures and the compiling principles of these two books and reorganize the digital text into a format that is more suitable for research use. This includes itemizing the contents, classifying them by organizations and duties, and retrieving the time information of each precedent. We also discover a compiling principle that can help to divide the records into several clusters. Each of them has its own topic. We then compare the two books from different aspects and discover that the differences between them are not only at the record level. Even the classes that were already clearly defined in the books may have several variations. To analyze the reasons for the differences, we design a method to explore the corresponding relations between statutes and precedents. Through this method, we have discovered 13,890 relations between 3,695 statute records and 25,150 precedent records.