顧頡剛與前玄同

本文從錢玄同和顧頡剛來往的書信中去探討兩人對傳統學術問題的看法。在論古書辨偽方面，錢玄同認為辨「偽事」比辨「偽書」重要，勸顧頡剛應將古書中辨「偽事」的篇章輯為一書，這個想法給顧頡剛的「古史層累說」不少靈感。在論六經性質方面，他們既不宗古文，也不宗今文，兩人都認為，孔子既未作六經，也未刪經。在討論〈詩經〉和〈春秋〉真相問題方面，認為〈詩經〉只不過是詩歌總集，根本不是聖經，讀〈詩經〉應從文章上去體會。(春秋〉並非孔子所作， (左傳〉則是〈國語〉的一部分。在討論古文層累說方面，顧頡剛以堯、舜、伯夷、叔齊為例，認為他們的事蹟本來都很少，後來才慢慢附加上去，所以古史往往是層層累積的，這就是著名的「古史層累說」。他們對某些學術問題的觀點並不完全正確，但可以看出當時學術思想變動的軌跡。

關鍵字

顧頡剛；錢玄向；經今古文學；古史辨

並列摘要

This article examines Ch'ien Hsuan-t'ung's and Ku Chieh-kang's views on problems of traditional scholarship as revealed in the correspondence between the two scholars. In investigating ancient texts and their authenticity, Ch'ien Hsuan-t'ung thought that identifying ”false events”, was more important than identifying ”false texts.”He encouraged Ku Chieh-kang to collate sections of ancient texts that identify false events and publish them as a book-length study. This idea provided much inspiration for Ku's ”layer accretion” theory of ancient history. In their researches on the Six Classics, the two scholars were followers of neither the Old Text nor the New Text school. They believed that Confucius neither composed nor edited the classics. In their studies of the Shih Ching and the Ch'un Ch'iu they held that the Shih Ching is simply a collection of poems and songs, not a classic work of the sages. Thus readers should approach the Shih Ching simply by seeking to understand the words of the poems, rather than by reading philosophical messages into them. Ku and Ch'ien also held that the Ch 'un Ch'iu is not the work of Confucius, and the Tso Commentary is simply part of the Kuo Yu. Ku's renowned ”layer accretion” theory of ancient texts. grew out of his study of accounts of Yao, Shun, PO Yi, and Shu Ch'i. In early sources, Ku contended, these figures were associated with very few historical deeds; later texts then gradually embellished and augmented their careers. Ku's hypothesis was that, as these examples show, the content of ancient history typically accumulates in a layer-by-layer fashion. Ku and Ch'ien's views on certain scholarly issues were not completely correct, but they provide fruitful material for tracing deve10pments in the scholarly thought of their time.