本文主旨在探討《四書五經大全》與明代科舉令甲之關係，辨析大、小注是否具功令權威性，並釐清科舉主《大全》說的成因。研究方法主要利用文獻分析，對於明代典章政書、實錄史料、文人著作、科舉錄試官批語等相關材料進行探究，縷析其中論述《大全》與程式功令關係文字，從而確認在永樂年間並未發布以《大全》取代洪武程式之詔令，頒行《大全》乃是朱棣對洪武程式的實踐，欲令其作為經義程式的輔翼教材，並非要取代成為科舉令甲。因此，本文指出學者將《四書五經大全》視為明代科考令甲的說法並不正確，並證明主《大全》說乃出自晚明儒者的誤解，明代科舉令甲終始主洪武程式，《大全》小注只是作為閱讀輔助，非令甲所尊。

The main purpose of this paper is to explore whether the Complete Collection of Four Books and Five Classics was ever decreed as the first-class imperial examination by Emperor Ming Chengzu. It also discusses the influence of the Complete Collection on the development of classical studies during the Ming Dynasty. This paper analyzes the official documents, historical records, literary works, and the comments from Exam Officers of the Ming Dynasty, examining the texts that discuss the relationship between the Complete Collection and the imperial examination system. It was found that during the Yongle era of the Ming Dynasty, there was no order to replace the Hongwu system with the Complete Collection, and the Complete Collection should be viewed as a practice by Zhu Di of the Hongwu system. Therefore, this paper points out that scholars' view of The Complete Collection of the Four Books and Five Classics as the official text for the Ming Dynasty civil service examinations is incorrect. It proves that the belief in the primacy of the Complete Collection originated from a misunderstanding by late Ming Confucian scholars. Throughout the Ming Dynasty, the civil service examinations consistently adhered to the Hongwu-era standards, and the minor annotations in the Complete Collection served merely as reading aids, not as authoritative texts for the examinations.

五經大全; 四書大全; 明代經學; 科舉程式

Complete Collection of Five Classics; Complete Collection of Four Books; classical studies in Ming Dynasty; imperial examination system