晚明歷史上的高攀龍（1562-1626），不僅在理學思想方面頗有建樹，而且在天啟黨爭中扮演著重要角色。本文利用高攀龍的未刊文稿《高子未刻稿》，重建其在天啟年間（1621-1627）的政治活動，認為反對派稱之為「東林黨魁」並非空穴來風。崇禎年間，高攀龍的門生親友為因應時勢，通過高氏碑傳書寫和文集《高子遺書》的編刻，隱藏高氏那些可以被指證為「東林黨魁」的言行，將其塑造成融會朱陸的「理學真儒」並爭取從祀孔廟。到了清初，活躍在東林書院的學者群體繼續爭取從祀高攀龍，但通過分析此時成書的《高子節要》的文本問題和編纂意圖可知，清初東林書院的學術已在「聖學宗傳，唯求一是」的理念下，完全尊信程朱，他們重塑的高攀龍理學形象，也隨之轉變為「朱子之後一人」的程朱純儒。

Gao Panlong 高攀龍 (1562-1626) was a famous late-Ming Neo-Confucian who also played an important role in the political struggles of the Tianqi 天啟 period (1621-1627). This article uses an unpublished manuscript known as Gaozi weikegao 高子未刻稿 to reconstruct Gao's political activities during that time, revealing that it was not without good reason that the opposing faction referred to him as “Leader of the Donglin Clique” 東林黨魁. Gao’s epitaph was put together by his disciples and relatives during the Chongzhen 崇禎 period (1628-1644) and published in Gaozi yishu 高子遺書. They glossed over any evidence which would identify him as the Leader of Donglin Clique, recasting him in the mold of a true Neo-Confucian who was a fusion of Zhu Xi 朱熹 (1130-1200) and Lu Jiuyuan 陸九淵 (1139-1193), and fought to have his ancestral tablet placed in the Confucian Temple. In the early Qing, scholars active in the Donglin Academy continued to pursue this struggle, but an analysis of textual problems and editorial intent in Gaozi jieyao 高子節要, which was compiled in this period, reveals that by the early Qing, Donglin Academy scholars had already come to place their complete trust in Cheng- Zhu 程朱 Neo-Confucianism and had recast Gao its sole heir.