郭沫若《甲骨文字研究·释龢言》析案

An Analysis of Guo Moruo's Research on the Oracle Characters

《释龢言》是郭沫若先生早年研究古文字学之著《甲骨文字研究》中的一篇涉及中国古管乐器器名考释的专文。在该释文中,郭氏仅据《尔雅》中的“小笙谓之和”“大箫谓之言”的两句释语,通过由文字到文字的辗转曲说,一反千百年来众口一词的历史记载,将本为单管乐器的“龠”(以“龢”字为论)定说成了“编管”乐器“箫”(排箫);又将本为“编管”乐器的“箫”(以“言”字为说)断定为“单管”乐器(洞箫)。这些考释都是与历史的成说完全相悖论的,但却在没有得到任何证据证实的情况下,被当代学界拿来用作定论;从而给中国古管乐器的正本清源,乃至整个古乐史的贯通带来了严重的影响。那么,郭氏的考释有没有真正的科学性和合理性呢?其观点究竟可不可能成立呢?本文试秉学术之天下公器,对《释龢言》全篇作一客观条理的全面析案,学者由此自可辨其真伪与正讹。

Shi He Yan is a special ar ticle about the name of Chinese ancient wind instruments in the study of Oracle characters, which was written by Mr. Guo Moruo in his early years. Based only on the two sentences of "xiao sheng wei zhi he" and "da xiao wei zhi yan" in Er Ya, against the thousands of years of consistent historical records, Guo changed the word "yue"(based on the word "he") into "bian guan" instrument "xiao"(pai xiao), which was originally a single wind instrument;And the "xiao"(with the word "yan" as the saying) which was originally a "bian guan" musical instrument was determined as a "danan guan" musical instrument(dong xiao). These explanations are totally contrar y to the historical theor y, but they are used as the final conclusion by the contemporar y academic circles without any evidence;Thus, it has a serious impact on the origin of Chinese ancient wind instruments, and even the whole histor y of ancient music. So, is Guo’s research really scientific and reasonable? Is it possible to hold this view? This paper, using the world’s academic tools, tries to make an objective and comprehensive analysis of the whole text of Shi He Yan. From this, scholars themselves can distinguish the true from the false.