《歸藏》平議

自王家臺秦簡《歸藏》出土，學界爭議甚多，或認為其已證明傳本《歸藏》非偽，或認為無法說明《歸藏》不是偽書。個人認為，這是緣於近一百年來由反傳統思潮主導學術思想界發展到走出疑古的新潮流，造成了兩種不同進路，有以致之。本文首先認為疑古與信古兩種態度均有可取，「無徵不信」 不應過度，「無證不疑」亦屬可取，總之研究者不能一廂情願，先有預設心理橫於胸中。全文從兩條分析進路切人探討，其一著眼於方法論，認為《歸藏》一書難以偽造，王家臺秦簡作者不可能逆知中古學者會如此傳述《歸藏》，由中古到清代，千餘年來學者亦未嘗夢見簡本《歸藏》出土，內容竟與他們記錄蒐輯者冥相符合。此即證明中古時期學者並未作偽，其所傳述的《歸藏》遠有來歷。這種來歷，消極點看，也有比較的價值，讓我們得以重新思考《歸藏》的流傳：積極點看，則應思考《歸藏》與《周易》同異以及上古歷史文化。進路之二著眼於歷史連續性，認為治《歸藏》者應先了解殷周歷史遞嬗，考察《歸藏》、《周易》均有六十四卦，卦名泰半近同，從龜筮的傳統、龜數筮數的演化，發展為以七、八不變為占及以六、九之變為占，與殷周政治意識型態的轉變，均有關係。總之，上古至中古文獻對《歸藏》、《坤乾》之名記述不絕如縷，其書若隱若現，簡本、輯本、傳本《歸藏》均可互證，在在符合王國維二重證據法的標準，亦說明了這部書在歷史河流裡載浮載沈的事實，實在沒有理由一口否定。Ever since the unearth of the Wangjiatai bamboo slips in which a new version Guicang was found, controversial research topics of the Guicang revived, including the identity of the bamboo version against the traditional version which were mainly collected from the medieval texts and edited by the Qing scholars. Did the Guicang exist in the Yin dynasty? Are these versions fake texts produced by later scholars? Some scholars believe that the bamboo version was the earliest Guicang, the sacred book of the Yin dynasty which is also an origin of the Zhouyi (Yi Jing, the Book of Changes),  while some challenge that all statements were speculated on supposition from the oral history tradition. This paper begins from arguing that the two aforementioned diverse views actually come from two different attitudes, supporting vs denying, towards Chinese intellectual and cultural traditions in the late 19^th to early 20^th century, then finally developed to become two diverse positions and discourses. This paper then tackles the problem from two approaches. The author applies textual criticism to reexamine evidences supporting and denying the identity of the Guicang. Through revisiting the Song and Yuan scholarships, he then lists corresponding evidences to illustrate how the author of the Zhouyi partly inherited the structure and divination methods of the Guicang, rewrote the content to declare a new Classic. The historical continuity from the Yin dynasty to the Zhou dynasty is actually embedded within the inner connections of the two Classics. The textual evidences justifying the Guicang should not be ignored and denied. Copyright © 2016 國立中山大學中國文學系.