本文討論清初西方解剖知識所引起的「腦」與「心」何為君官的爭議。 雖然十七世紀以前的西方醫學一直有心主說與腦主說的理論，但明末來華的 天主教傳教士則主張靈魂在心，與中國思想上以心為君官的說法，並無二致。 爭議的起因則和教士欲彰顯記憶在腦、政治事件、文本的傳抄等因素有關。 在心與腦的爭議中，反教士人藉由中、西身體觀的差異，吐露他們對西教的 不滿；非反教的士人，則往往以其特別的推理方式延伸西學中「記憶在腦」 之說。清初腦與心的爭議主要不在醫療場域，反而緊貼著西學和西教傳入的 文化和政治脈絡，展延為清朝士人迎拒西方自然哲學與神學的鬥爭。這些現 象說明了研究十七、八世紀西學中的解剖知識，必須重視教會的自然哲學、 在地政治文化脈絡與歷史行動者的多元性。

This paper examines the early Qing debate over whether the heart or the brain is the “hegemonic organ,” to use the Galenic concept. The hegemonic organ refers to the organ that dominates the actions of the body, and in the context of European natural philosophy is said to be the location of the soul. Prior to the seventeenth century, there was a long-running debate between encephalocentrism and cardiocentrism in European medicine, natural philosophy, and theology. The Catholic missionaries who arrived in China in the late sixteenth century unanimously held that the soul was located in the heart, a view similar to that in Chinese medical and philosophical traditions, which regarded the heart as the “king” of all organs. Chinese literati, however, were suspicious of the association between Christianity and the anatomical concept of the brain. Anti-Christian literati took advantage of this to attack Christianity by associating the Western theory of mind with early Qing heterodox cults. To vindicate their religion, missionaries and Chinese Christians quickly responded by appealing to the Aristotelian idea of the heart as the hegemonic organ. Nevertheless, both anti-Christian literati and the Chinese converts alike recognized that anatomical knowledge was not just a medical issue, but also a religious one. The debate over which organ controls the body and soul was one which caused division in society, and one through which people articulated their affinity towards or opposition to the European Others and their religion.