晚清士大夫對西方教育的認識與引介：郭嵩燾與吳汝綸之比較

Abstract

本研究屬歷史研究，採史學方法蒐集一手史 料後 進行 考證與分析，並輔以比較教育學「教育轉移」理論， 以 了解 郭嵩燾與吳汝綸赴外教育考察 經驗，探討晚清中國士 大夫 面對西方的挑戰，進而 引介西式教育的歷程 及其 歸國後 提供教育制度 改革的參考，由此了解晚清 由 傳統 教育 走向西 式教育 的過程。郭嵩燾於光緒2年受命為首任駐英公使，出使前即有對外交涉經驗，奉派出使後，結合個人早期辦理洋務經驗，以積極的態度觀察英國各種近代化設施與發明，且走訪許多文教機構。在日記及給友人的書信中，亦將這些見聞，聯想到如何進行國家改革。他雖受制朝廷排外的風氣，無法刊印個人旅外經驗，在歸隱鄉里後，仍透過親友聚會及講學的方式推廣西學。整體社會氛圍至甲午戰敗後開始轉變，朝野興起仿效日本的風潮，吳汝綸由朝廷派遣赴日考察教育，是歷來赴日教育考察人員中，層級最高、受到待遇最好者。吳汝綸歸國後，著書介紹日本教育改革經驗及推動新政的建議等，後續間接影響癸卯學制的制定。比較郭嵩燾與吳汝綸赴外教育考察經歷的異同處後可知，首先，晚清士大夫在中外文化衝擊及反洋氛圍下，仍有人以好奇心去認識不斷變化的世界，並與個人傳統學養對話，企圖在西化變革中保留文化精髓。其次，郭吳二人皆重視教育作為國家養成人才的途徑，並皆試圖將赴外教育考察的經驗加以傳播與實踐，希望透過教育的力量，培養人才、改善社會風氣，進而期以西化教育改革能為國救亡圖存。再從兩人對待西方的態度、處理中學與西學的關係、教育與國家富強的關係、所理解的西方教育制度、所認識西方教育的文化層次五方面，描繪出他們心中不同的西式教育圖像，此可能因其身處時期社會氛圍不同及兩人仕途經歷與視角差異所致。最後，影響晚清中國教育轉移的因素有：當時社會氛圍對改革的態度、教育制度借出國的條件、教育制度借入國所選赴外考察者的出身背景、仕途經歷、是否有抱持明確的教育考察目的及行前準備等，而這些皆影響郭、吳二人對外國教育的觀察、理解、記錄及引介成效。

The aim of this study is to explore the western educational experiences of two Chinese key figures, Minister Sung-Tao Kuo and Master Ju-Lun Wu in late Qing dynasty. Both of the diaries of Minister Sung-Tao Kuo in Britain during 1876 to 1879, and the records of master Ju-Lun Wu in Japan during 1902 were analyzed and the educational transfer theory was used to analyze the literati’s attitude changing among the western educational system in late Qing China.Sung-Tao Kuo who has handled foreign affairs actively was appointed as the first minister to the Great Britian during 1876 to 1879. When he stayed in Britian, he encountered the western civilization and visited different western schools aggressively. He kept his observation in the diaries, and shared his suggestions with his friends by letters. Although he resigned in 1879, he continually advocated his western experiences in his hometown. After the xenophobia of the society gradually changed since 1894, the Qing court started to imitate Japan's experiences of westernization reform. Before he inaugurated the vice-chancellor of Imperial Capital University, Master Ju-Lun Wu was inspected Japanese education over four months in 1902. By comparing the two literati, the main findings are as follows. First, when the Qing Empire suffered the impact and the challenges of western civilization, both of them tried to discover the changing world with curiosity. While they absorbed the knowledge of western education, they also tried to preserve the heritage of traditional Chinese culture. Second, both of them noticed that education would be one of the important ways to save the empire fate by transmuting their experiences of inspecting foreign education. Third, the social atmosphere to foreign affairs, the object of educational investigation, and the preparation of the inspectors could influence Kuo’s and Wu’s observation, understanding and recording to foreign education, and the effects of the educational transfer. The difference on the image of western-style education between Minister Sung-Tao Kuo and Master Ju-Lun Wu, including the attitudes toward the western countries, and the views on the relationship between Chinese and western learning. The reason might be due to the atmosphere of the two people in different eras, as well as their personal experiences and perspectives.Finally, the factors that influenced the educational transfer of China in the late Qing Dynasty were the attitude of the social atmosphere towards the reform, the purpose and the conditions for the educational borrowing from the country, the inspector’s background, experiences, and the preparations before the visits. All of them affected their observation, understanding, and recording of foreign education, and effectiveness of introduction.