編纂

清乾隆三十八年（1773年）二月朝廷設立了「四庫全書館」，負責《四庫全書》的編纂，由乾隆皇帝的第六子永瑢負責，任命內閣大學士于敏中為總裁，大學士以及六部尚書、侍郎為副總裁。召著名學者紀昀為總纂官，「總理編書之事」。開始編纂這套卷帙浩繁的叢書。陸錫熊、孫士毅、戴震、周永年、邵晉涵等其他學者也參與了編纂。曾參與編撰並正式列名的文人學者達到三千六百多人，而抄寫人員也有三千八百人。

《四庫全書》收錄了當時在全國各地徵收的流通圖書、清內廷收藏的圖書以及《永樂大典》中輯出來的珍本善本。徵收準則以闡明性學治法、考核典章、九流百家之言為優先，族譜、尺牘、屏障、壽言、唱酬詩文等等則不在考慮之列。據統計，光是徵收得的圖書就達13501種，獻書最多的鮑士恭、范懋柱、汪啟叔、馬裕四家賜以內府所印《古今圖書集成》一部。當時乾隆還規定，凡從坊肆來的，應該付給一定的費用；若是家藏圖書，則裝裱印刷；如未曾刊刻，則抄本存留。

這些書籍分為「著錄」、「存目」與「禁燬」三類處理：符合部分條件的，被列為「存目」，只存書名，不收其書。「抵觸本朝」之書一概「禁燬」。符合收錄條件的「著錄」，著錄書則經過整理、校勘、考證後，按特定格式重新抄寫存入，謄寫完成後，還要與原本反覆校勘，最後收錄的圖書有三千四百六十一種。而存目書有著錄書的兩倍的數量也是因為乾隆想實現觀成的願望才棄多取少。

《四庫全書》為了美觀與便于識別，採用分色裝幀，經部綠色，史部紅色，子部月白色（或淺藍色），集部灰黑色。四部顏色的確定，依春夏秋冬四季而定。《四庫全書總目》因為是全書綱領，採用代表中央的黃色。

乾隆四十九年（1784年）四套書陸續完成，全書共抄7部。第一部存于北京紫禁城皇宮文淵閣，第二部存于奉天故宮（今瀋陽）文溯閣，第三部存于京郊圓明園文源閣，第四部存于承德避暑山莊文津閣，合稱「內廷四閣」（或稱「北四閣」），「只准大臣官員、翰林等閱覽」。後又以江浙地區為人文淵藪，文風鼎盛，就再鈔的正本三部，分別存在鎮江金山寺建文宗閣，揚州大觀堂建文匯閣，杭州西湖行宮孤山聖因寺建文瀾閣，即「江浙三閣」（或稱「南三閣」），各藏抄本一部，「為便於士子入院鈔閱」。副本存于京師翰林院（其中文淵閣本最早完成，校勘更精、字體也更工整）。

編纂《四庫全書》時，清廷為維護統治，大量查禁明清兩朝有所謂違礙字句的古籍（見四庫禁書）。據統計，在長達10餘年的修書過程中，「犖犖大者文字之獄共有三十四件」。乾隆五十二年（1787年）乾隆皇帝抽查《四庫全書》時發現一些書有詆毀清朝的字句，因此下令重檢《四庫全書》，並最終刪除《諸史同異錄》等11部。但這11部書雖然從《四庫全書》中刪除，但是依然存在宮中，沒有銷毀，這11部書中的9部還流傳到今天。

嘉慶八年（1803年）由紀昀主持《四庫全書》最後一部分官修書籍的補遺工作，進一步完善《四庫全書》。

特點

古籍輯佚

清朝在編纂《四庫全書》的過程中尋回和修復了不少早已失傳的中國古籍，梁啟超對此評論道：「此二百餘年間總可命為中國之『文藝復興時代』，特其興也，漸而非頓耳……吾輩尤有一事當感謝清儒者，曰輯佚。書籍經久必漸散亡，取各史藝文、經籍等志校其存佚易見也。膚蕪之作，存亡固無足輕重；名著失墜，則國民之遺產損焉。乾隆中修《四庫全書》，其書之採自《永樂大典》者以百計，實開輯佚之先聲。此後茲業日昌，自周秦諸子，漢人經注，魏晉六朝逸史逸集，苟有片語留存，無不搜羅最錄。其取材則唐宋間數種大類書，如《藝文類聚》、《初學記》、《太平御覽》等最多，而諸經註疏及他書，凡可搜者無不遍。當時學者從事此業者甚多，不備舉。而馬國翰之《玉函山房輯佚書》，分經史子三部，集所輯至數百種，他可推矣。遂使《漢志》諸書、《隋唐志》久稱已佚者，今乃累累現於吾輩之藏書目錄中，雖復片鱗碎羽，而受賜則既多矣。」

收錄西學

《四庫全書》對西方科學書籍作出較高的評價：「歐羅巴人天文推算之密，工匠製作之巧，實逾前古。其議論誇詐遷怪，亦為異端之尤。國朝節取其技能而禁傳其學術，具存深意。」，同時將西方宗教與西方科學作了區分，強調「節取其技能」，因為《四庫》的作者們明白傳教士的來華目的是為了傳播天主教，當時的學者已經發現西方存在傳播宗教與價值觀的傾向，介紹西學不過是傳教的手段，因此《四庫全書》的作者們在讚揚西學的同時指出「蓋欲借推測之有驗，以證天主堂之不誣，用意極為詭譎」。

《四庫全書》收錄了27種西方傳教士的著述，包括西洋的數學、天文、儀器及機械等方面的著作，被收錄的書籍包括有《泰西水法》、《西儒耳目資》、《坤輿圖說》、《乾坤體義》等。

成書之後

《四庫全書》完成至今的兩百年間，中國歷經動亂，《四庫全書》也同樣飽經滄桑，多份抄本在戰火中被毀。因此《四庫全書》至今僅存4套：

• 文宗閣本、文匯閣本在咸豐三年（1853年）太平天國運動期間被毀；

• 文源閣本在咸豐十年（1860年）英法聯軍攻占北京、火燒圓明園時被毀，今法國保留部分殘本；

• 清代翰林院底本在光緒廿六年（1900年）庚子拳亂時，位於英國使館北鄰的翰林院遭縱火，毀於拳民圍攻東交民巷外國使館期間；

• 文淵閣本原藏北京故宮，後經上海、南京轉運至臺灣，現藏臺北市國立故宮博物院（也是保存較為完好的一部）。

• 杭州文瀾閣藏書樓於咸豐十一年（1861年）在太平軍第二次攻占杭州時倒塌，所藏《四庫全書》散落民間；後由藏書家丁氏兄弟收拾、整理、補抄，才搶救回原書的四分之一，於光緒七年（1881年）再度存放入修復後的文瀾閣。文瀾閣本在經歷1915－1923年的乙卯補抄和1923－1925年的癸亥補抄後大體恢復舊觀，現藏杭州浙江省圖書館。

• 文溯閣本於民國十一年（1922年）險些被賣給日本人。1966年10月，因中蘇關係緊張，為保《四庫全書》安全，林彪要求將文溯閣《四庫全書》秘密從瀋陽運至蘭州，藏于戈壁沙漠中，現藏蘭州甘肅省圖書館。近些年，遼寧有關人士要求歸還，以「書閣合璧」；甘肅亦建藏書樓加強保護。對於文溯閣本是否要歸還瀋陽，兩省一直未能達成一致。

• 避暑山莊文津閣本於1931年移入國立北平圖書館（現中國國家圖書館）收藏。（這是目前唯一一套原架原函原書保存的版本）

民國初期，商務印書館影印了《四庫全書珍本初集》。1986年，臺灣商務印書館影印出版了文淵閣本《四庫全書》，上海古籍出版社曾將之縮印。1999年，香港的迪志文化出版有限公司分別與上海人民出版社以及香港中文大學在中國大陸及香港出版發行文淵閣本《四庫全書》電子書版。2006年，迪志文化出版有限公司出版全新《文淵閣四庫全書》電子版的內聯網版和網上版。2009年，臺灣商務印書館由國立故宮博物院授權，按照典藏之文淵閣本原書原寸，以仿古樣式影印出版，即內文、開本、紙質、布面、裝幀方式等皆與原版相同。

2016年8月9日，歷時12年方告完成的影印版文津閣《四庫全書》重新入藏文淵閣，該影印版製作時間長達12年，全部採用手工宣紙，包裝上也恢復了傳統的裝訂工藝，書封採用耿絹。整套書用6144個金絲柚木盒，重新放到了空置已久的文淵閣128個書架上。

評論

• 魯迅在批評明清和民國文人時表示：「現在不說別的，單看雍正乾隆兩朝的對于中國人著作的手段，就足夠令人驚心動魄。全毀，抽毀，剜去之類也且不說，最陰險的是刪改了古書的內容。乾隆朝的纂修《四庫全書》，是許多人頌為一代之盛業的，但他們卻不但搗亂了古書的格式，還修改了古人的文章；不但藏之內廷，還頒之文風較盛之處，使天下士子閱讀，永不會覺得我們中國的作者裡面，也曾經有過很有些骨氣的人……清朝的考據家有人說過，「明人好刻古書而古書亡」，因為他們妄行校改。我以為這之後，則清人纂修《四庫全書》而古書亡，因為他們變亂舊式，刪改原文；今人（民國）標點古書而古書亡，因為他們亂點一通，佛頭著糞：這是古書的水火兵蟲以外的三大厄。 」

• 歷史學家吳晗慨嘆：「清人纂修《四庫全書》而古書亡矣！」。

• 唐弢：《四庫全書》...使作者的思想和軀殼一齊淹沒，是近于消極的取消。至于改竄，是要借作者的名聲，替改者說好話，使讀者暗受其影響，看不出底細來。所以這不但是毀尸滅跡，而且還借刀殺人，要古人也和自己一樣，讓他們進反省院，寫悔過書，從此變成正統。然而《四庫全書》不但挂著欽定的招牌，便是刪改和擯斥，在乾隆，也是不加深諱的。他的給《四庫》總裁們的諭旨里，就常常明白地指示著：哪一種應該刪改，哪一種應該釐訂，大都說得很清楚。他似乎並沒有料到：他的那些諭旨，在將來，正是自己篡改古書罪案的証人。

• 史學家陳寅恪在《陳垣元西域華人化考序》中指出清朝所禁毀的書籍幾乎都是晚明清初的書，其他書籍甚少：「然清室所最忌諱者，不過東北一隅之地，晚明初清數十年間之載記耳。」

• 費正清：通過這項龐大工程，清廷實際上進行了一次文字清查（文學上的「宗教裁判」）工作，其目的之一是取締一切非議外來統治者的著作。編纂人在搜求珍本和全整文本以編入這一大文庫時，也就能夠查出那些應予取締或銷毀的一切異端著作。他們出善價收集珍本，甚至挨家挨戶搜尋。該禁的圖書是研究軍事或邊務的著作以及有反夷狄之說的評議，還有就是那些頌揚明朝的作品。……正如L. C. 古德里奇所論証的，這是最大規模的思想統治。

• 史景遷：編纂《四庫全書》還具有檢視文獻的目的，藉此搜查私人藏書，並嚴懲那些收藏有輕視滿人內容的書籍的人。這類書，以及包含有害於中國國防的地理和游記類書籍也被銷毀。這些毀書行動之徹底，使得我們知道的被乾隆的文化顧問納入禁毀之列的兩千多種圖書從此銷聲匿跡。

• 獨立學者周英傑：你當然可以說它是一項前無古人的偉大事業，但也完全可以說它是「閹割」中國傳統文化的一項「缺德工程」。

• 歷史學者張宏傑：「經過康熙雍正兩代文字獄，清王朝思想專制已經大大加強。乾隆皇帝又通過修四庫全書，開展「消滅記憶」運動。」

• 中國國家新聞出版廣電總局規劃發展司副司長李建臣認為，編纂《四庫全書》過程也是對中國傳統文化最大的一次戕害。只要是被認為對清朝統治不利的著作和圖書，就會毫不猶豫地統統毀掉，被銷毀的各類圖書典籍在3000餘種，6萬餘卷，15萬冊，70多萬部。這導致中華民族的一些優秀思想文化成果和善本、孤本、秘本、禁毀本等一大批珍貴史料典籍永遠消失，甚至對明代皇家檔案和有關明朝類的史書、筆記等也進行了系統銷毀。由于《四庫全書》是國家強行徵集，民間所珍藏的典籍無一漏網，盡皆被毀。

• 季羨林評論《四庫全書》為「我國現存最大的一部官修叢書，是清乾隆皇帝詔諭編修的我國乃至世界最大的文化工程。全書分經、史、子、集四部，收書3503種，79309卷，存目書籍6793種，93551卷，分裝36000餘冊，約10億字。相當于同時期法國狄德羅主編《百科全書》的44倍。清乾隆以前的中國重要典籍，許多都收載其中。由于編纂人員都是當時的著名學者，因而代表了當時學術的最高水平。乾隆編修此書的初衷雖是「寓禁於徵」，但客觀上整理、保存了一大批重要典籍，開創了中國書目學，確立了漢學在社會文化中的主導地位，具有無與倫比的文獻價值、史料價值、文物價值與版本價值」。

• 史學家龔書鐸評價：「乾隆年間《四庫全書》的編纂，為華夏文明的延續做出了不可磨滅的貢獻，為後人保留了許許多多珍貴的書籍和資料，但是，在編纂過程中，也免不了發生許多令人遺憾的事情」。

• 梁啟超：「乾隆中修《四庫全書》，其書之採自《永樂大典》者以百計，實開輯佚之先聲。此後茲業日昌，自周秦諸子，漢人經注，魏晉六朝逸史逸集，苟有片語留存，無不搜羅最錄。」

• 哈佛大學歷史學教授、新清史學派學者歐立德指出，乾隆從一開始就想通過編纂《四庫全書》來對學術和文學的發展加以審查的說法有失公允。乾隆的初衷是「蒐集和保存古今之圖書」，以塑造出自己是「文化巨人」的正面形象，儘管乾隆期間的文字獄帶來種種亂象，但並非是乾隆一個人的責任，他指出，許多文字獄的判罰雖然以朝廷的旗號進行，但這並不能說明大規模的審查得到了乾隆本人的授意，雖然這和乾隆的「報復心」有關，但「底層官員的熱情和野心以及地方上發生的那些與地主士紳相關的瑣碎紛爭至少也應該承擔同樣的責任」。乾隆不出面阻止的原因，是因為清朝皇帝的皇權實際上並不是無限的，乾隆無力阻止官僚擴大化文字獄。哈佛大學歷史學家、漢學家孔飛力以「叫魂案」為例，指出「清代皇權並非真正意義上的獨裁，皇權與官僚制度存在不穩定的依存關係，皇權必須隨時提防來自官僚制度的惰性威脅」。中國歷史學教授高王凌在也提出過相似的概念「反行為」，高王凌認為清代官僚對於皇權只是在表面服從的前提之下，在暗地裡卻幹著只可意會不可言傳的貓膩行為，從而將皇帝的意志「反過來」。

相關典籍

• 《四庫全書總目提要》/《四庫全書總目》/《欽定四庫全書總目》二百卷

• 《四庫全書簡明目錄》二十卷

• 《四庫全書薈要》一萬二千冊

• 《四庫全書考證》一百卷

• 《武英殿聚珍版叢書》

History

Creation

Late in the 18th century, the Qing dynasty set about a momentous task, the creation of the Siku Quanshu. The Qianlong Emperor ordered the creation of the Siku Quanshu in 1772. Local and Provincial officers were in charge of locating and collecting important books. The Qianlong Emperor encouraged owners of rare or valuable books to send them to the capital, however few actually did due to concerns about the Literary Inquisition. Towards the end of 1772, seeing that only a limited number of people actually handed in books, the Qianlong Emperor issued imperial decrees stressing that books would be returned to their owners once the compilation was finished and that owners of the books would not be persecuted if their books contained anti-Manchu sentiment. Less than three months after the issue of this decree, four to five thousand books were handed in.

By March 1773, an editorial board (composed of hundreds of editors, collators, and copyists) was created in Beijing to gather and review books brought to them. This board included over 361 scholars, with Ji Yun and Lu Xixiong (陸錫熊) as chief editors. There was around 3,826 scribes who copied every word by hand. These copyists were not paid in coinage but in government positions after they had transcribed a set amount of the encyclopedia. It took over a decade until the encyclopedia was completed and all seven copies were distributed.

By 1782, the special guide to the Siku Quanshu was completed, the Siku Quanshu Zongmu Tiyao, which contains accurate information of bibliography of the 3,593 titles in the Siku Quanshu itself. Additionally, it also contains bibliography information of 6,793 other books that are not available in the Siku Quanshu. The Siku Quanshu Zongmu Tiyao would not be published until 1793 and when released, the Siku Quanshu Zongmu Tiyao became the largest Chinese book catalog of the time.

Compilation

The compilation of the Siku Quanshu started with the Siku Quanshu Zongmu Tiyao. Fully compiled in 1773, editing would begin shortly, with the first workable drafts being completed in 1781.This would include bibliographic explanation of all the works fully included in the final Siku Quanshu, as well as a large number of works that are included in title only. The Siku Quanshu contains 4 series: Confucian Classic which contains important works of Confucius, Belles-Lettres which contain literary works ranging from personal letters to poetry or writing meant for the masses, and finally Historiography and Masters which houses works from scholar and the content can range from scientific works and military works.

A large number of these edits were made to limit the effects of embellishments and other inaccuracies found in local records. Personal documents, often entailing the actions noteworthy local people, that could be verified through preexisting government documents were often included into the Siku Quanshu Zongmu Tiyao for consideration for inclusion into the finished Siku Quanshu. However, documents that could not be verified were often included in title only, and were criticized by the compilers as unfit for full inclusion into the finished collection. Not even officially sponsored writers, such as local gazetteers, were safe from the scrutiny of the official compilers, leading to criticisms of adding or using ambiguous sources to elevate local figures to be more significant than they actually were.

Medical knowledge was often documented through case-style narratives first seen in twenty-five instances in Sima Qian's Records of the Grand Historian. These instances would form prototypical templates for future medical accounts. Medical accounts from then on took a narrative voice with a secondary analytical tone focusing on a blend of storytelling, vocational knowledge, and historical recording. However, as time progressed, the vocabulary used to record the medical cases started to differ from author to author. By the time of the Qing dynasty, however, the language used to create and define the medical cases had begun to resettle, allowing for ease of inclusion of these texts into the Siku Quanshu.

Case-based recording and discourse of philosophy also was a target for compilation. Similar to how medical knowledge had a prototypical template for future works, Huang Zongxi's writings in the field had largely served a similar purpose. However, despite popular discourse among scholars of this era, philosophical writing had suffered immensely from two problems. Firstly, was a lack of clear definition regarding philosophical writings as a whole, giving rise to two separate, but equal definitions. "Archival" would mean that the philosophical work would be defined as a scholarly article. Whereas, "cultural" would mean the literature would be rearranged as a Buddhist Kōan, though any writing presented this way would be interpreted in a more literal fashion as compared to the traditional rhetorical question. Chinese philosophical writing's other problem at this time would be a lack of bibliographical classification, largely in part due to authors and previous compilers not considering any philosophical work as part of a historical record. As such, compilers for the Siku Quanshu redefined the classifications of several compilations that made it into the published copies, and set boundaries based on the author's biographical history and intent of their writing in an attempt to remedy these dilemmas.

The Qianlong Emperor made reviews on works that were currently being compiled, and that their opinions on the work reviewed were often conveyed through direct comments or imperial edicts. This, in turn, colored the official compilers criteria for works suitable for inclusion in the Siku Quanshu, to more closely align with those of the emperor. However, the emperor often commented poorly on works from or about their political rivals, especially opponents holding Anti-Manchu sentiments, running in contrast to stories from locally published sources. This can be exemplified in the compilers' handling of the story of Zhang Shicheng, and his rival Zhu Yuanzhang. In this particular case, the Qianlong Emperor sought to discredit the previous dynasty by highlighting the cruelty of early Ming dynasty rule. Ming-era rule would be contrasted by comparison to Qing-era policies, which appeared more palatable in comparison to harsh judgement. The Qing dynasty acknowledged the legitimacy of the former Hongwu Emperor, but by portraying him in this way, sought to solidify the legitimacy of their own dynasty by raising doubts of the latter dynasty's rule. Moreover, the compilers did not see Zhang Shicheng's rule as legitimate, but as a natural response to the narrative tyranny of the people under the Ming dynasty.

Distribution

The Qianlong Emperor commissioned seven copies of the Siku Quanshu to be made. The first four copies were for the Emperor and were kept in the north. The Qianlong Emperor constructed special libraries for them. They were located in the Forbidden City, Old Summer Palace, Shenyang, and Chengde. The remaining three copies were sent to the south. They were deposited into libraries within the cities of Hangzhou, Zhenjiang, and Yangzhou. All seven libraries also received copies of the 1725 imperial encyclopedia Gujin tushu jicheng.

The copy kept in the Old Summer Palace was destroyed during the Second Opium War in 1860. The two copies kept in Zhenjang and Yangzhou were completely destroyed while the copy kept in Hangzhou was only about 70 to 80 percent destroyed, during the Taiping Rebellion. The four remaining copies suffered some damage during the Second Sino-Japanese War. Today, those copies can be located in the National Library of China in Beijing, the National Palace Museum in Taipei, the Gansu Provincial Library in Lanzhou, and the Zhejiang Library in Hangzhou.

Censorship

The Qianlong Emperor did not keep his promises to return the books. Any books that did not make it into the Siku Quanshu risked becoming part of the Siku Jinshu. The Siku Jinshu is a catalogue of over 2,855 books that were rejected and banned during the completion of the Siku Quanshu. An additional four to five hundred other books were edited and censored. A majority of the books that were banned were written towards the end of the Ming dynasty and contained anti-Manchu sentiment. The Siku Jinshu was the Qianlong Emperor's attempt to rid the Qing dynasty of any Ming Loyalists by executing scholars and burned any books that gave direct or implied political attacks against the Manchu.

Contents

A page from the Siku Quanshu.Each copy of the Siku Quanshu was bound into 36,381 volumes (册), with more than 79,000 chapters (卷). In total, each copy is around 2.3 million pages, and has approximately 800 million Chinese characters.

Complete Catalogue

The scholars working on the Siku Quanshu wrote a descriptive note for each book which detailed the author's name along with their place and year of birth. Next, after they determined what parts of the author's work would go into the compilation, they would analyze the main points of the author's argument. This short annotation, which reflected their own opinion, would be put in the beginning of the Siku Quanshu and formed the Complete Catalogue. The Complete Catalogue was divided into four sections or kù (庫; translated to "warehouse; storehouse; treasury; repository"), in reference to the imperial library divisions. The name, Siku Quanshu, is a reference to these four sections. These four sections are:

• Jīng (經 "Classics") Chinese classic texts

• Shǐ (史 "Histories") histories and geographies from Chinese history

• Zĭ (子 "Masters") philosophy, arts, sciences from Chinese philosophy

• Jí (集 "Collections") anthologies from Chinese literature

44 Sub-Categories

The books are then divided into 44 sub-categories, or lèi (類). The Siku Quanshu collection includes most major Chinese texts, from the ancient Zhou Dynasty to the Qing Dynasty, covering all domains of academia. It also lacks any Western or Japanese texts. Included within these 44 sub-categories are: the Analects of Confucius, Mencius, Great Learning, Doctrine of the Mean, I Ching, Rites of Zhou, Classic of Rites, Classic of Poetry, Spring and Autumn Annals, Shuowen Jiezi, Records of the Grand Historian, Zizhi Tongjian, The Art of War, Guoyu, Stratagems of the Warring States, Compendium of Materia Medica, and other classics.

Authors in the Siku Quanshu

Two of Zhao Yiguang's works are housed in the Wang Qishu, they were the Jiuhuan Shitu (九圜史圖) and the Liuhe Mantu (六匌曼圖). They were part of the Siku Quanshu Cunmu Congshu (四庫全書存目叢書).